...and began to De-Colonize/ Eradicate their Former White European Colonizers (aka- Trump/ MAGA) and Began Enacting the Great Replacement (starting with "ballots" instead of "voters")_
Post-Colonialism's Race-Essential Ethical Narcissism
"White/ European Colonizers Bad... Brown De-colonizers Good"
The term "ethical narcissism" (or "ethic narcissism") describes a behavior where an individual's focus is placed on themselves as an ethical agent, prioritizing the projection of moral certainty or "being a good person" over the actual, practical results of their actions. [1, 2, 3]
It frequently manifests in three distinct ways:
- Performative Morality: Engaging in moral outrage or virtue signaling primarily to build a specific public image rather than to help others. [1, 2, 3]
- The Paradox of Moral Self-Awareness: Becoming so deeply focused on evaluating one's own ethical correctness that the energy and empathy required to naturally respond to others is lost. [1, 2]
- Authoritarian Leadership: In organizational or ideological environments, leaders may claim a unique position of moral insight. They pressure (and shame) followers to conform strictly to their worldview, which often marginalizes critical voices and prioritizes compliance over ethical deliberation. [1]
Aren't Immigrants "Colonizers", by definition?
It is a Puzzlement!
74 comments:
This didn't happen in 2008. It never happened and never will.
DEI and ESG mandates never happened? I musta been having a nightmare...
There is no "Black Identitarian Action Affirming Democratic Party". So that party doing anything could never have happened and can never happen. Because it doesn't exist.
Intelligent folks just laugh at the absurdity of rightwing dimwits.
The video on the NY teachers strike tells a different story professor... one of throwing the unions over for local black school control.
You trying to tell us that you're one of the intelligent people? lol!
I think I hear much laughter.
;p>/a>
Minus: I think I hear much laughter.
What you're saying is that you're experiencing auditory hallucinations? That doesn't sound good. I think you should see a doctor. These hallucinations could be due to a very serious medical condition.
What's wrong with Black students having teachers that can relate to their own background? You also object to Black voters being able to select representatives that can relate to their background as well. The "different story" is that you think Black students should have only White teachers and that Black voters should only have White representation. Due to being a White Supremacist. But I do see your "proof" is from 1968. Yet you think that's relative to today somehow...
Isn't that when Nixon supposedly deployed his infamous Southern Strategy? How is that relevant to today somehow?
Now we know the truth. That's when the Democrats threw the Unions under the bus in favour of anti-white neo-racism. The "old" Left became the "new Left". And the DSA was the "old" part that until recently supported Unions over Neoracism. The Neo-racist Democrats invented the so-called Southern Strategy to mask the split and hide their new neo-racist agenda with DARVO. Can I call you Darvo Dervy now?
Richard Nixon’s "Southern Strategy" was primarily implemented during his 1968 presidential campaign and further refined for his re-election in 1972. The concept itself gained widespread public attention and analysis around 1969 following the rise of key political advisors.
Founding and the Socialist Split
The 1973 Split: Michael Harrington led a faction out of the Socialist Party of America (SPA) because he opposed the Vietnam War and the party's hardline anti-communism. This group formed the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) in 1973.The 1982 Merger: DSOC merged with the New American Movement (NAM)—a New Left organization—to officially create the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
Relation to Democrats and Unions
The Democratic Party Strategy: Early leadership pursued a "realignment" strategy, working inside the Democratic Party to push its platform leftward, a tactic modern chapters continue during primary elections.
Union Ties: DSOC initially brought strong ties to the trade union movement and traditional labor figures from the Old Left, though modern relations with institutional union leadership fluctuate as the organization leans into newer labor organizing and millennial/gen-Z membership bases.
Nixon started pandering to white union workers abandoned by the Democrats in 1968. That was "the Southern Strategy". Reagan tried again in '80. Trump again in 2016/ 24 by tossing out DEI. What you call "white supremacy" is ending the Democratic Party's white-shaming guilt-pride project
The one that was born from the Democratic Party's neoracist turn to Identity politics and veiled as a "Civil Rights movement"
You would know that from experience, Darvo Derv.
Minus: Isn't that when Nixon supposedly deployed his infamous Southern Strategy? How is that relevant to today somehow?
It's relevant because the republicans are still using the Southern Strategy. They never stopped.
Minus: Now we know the truth. That's when the Democrats threw the Unions under the bus in favour of anti-white neo-racism.
How can the truth be something that never happened? You said previously that you're opposed to unions. Now you say republicans since Nixon have been pro-union? That's 🐂💩
Minus: What you call "white supremacy" is ending the Democratic Party's white-shaming guilt-pride project. The one that was born from the Democratic Party's neoracist turn to Identity politics and veiled as a "Civil Rights movement".
Something that never began can't be ended. It would have to be started first. The Democratic Party never made a neoracist turn to Identity politics. They advocate for equality and equal rights for all. The republican party sticks with White Identity politics. Even more strongly under donald trump, who ran on White grievance. You object to Democrats advocating for equality due to being a White Supremacist. You don't want policies that force equality in hiring, school admissions, and military advancement consideration (aka DEI).
lol. Darvo is your MO*.
*If this is how you're using the term...
DARVO is an acronym that stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. It is a psychological manipulation tactic used by perpetrators (such as abusers or toxic individuals) to evade accountability when confronted about their harmful behavior.
Funny how all that arguing for equality became perpetual affirmation and advantage for blacks. Meden agan ran amock in a "coloured" direction.
Convince me otherwise, Darvo Dervy.
You're upset that I'm calling out your white-shaming BLM ally looksmaxxing? You're right, I'm the anti-racist. @@
Isn't Darvo the very definition of anti-racism?
...or in you Darvo mind, I'm just an anti-neoracist?
...or in your preferred code-switch terms, I must be a white supremacist.
...opposed to your alliance with brown supremacy (anti-colonialist decolonization of Eurocentric power structures.
btw- when will you call out the post-Mandela anti-white ANC in South Africa? You seemed quite upset when Trump called their neoracism out to their faces in the Oval Office last year.
You are 100 percent unconvincable, due to being a hardcore White Supremacist. In your delusions Black people have an "advantage". FYI. normal people see your delusions as utterly absurd.
Also, deploying a darvo strategy is your primary MO. It's the basis for your "neo racism" BS... it falsely claims oppressors are actually victims.
Minus: Isn't Darvo the very definition of anti-racism?
Only on 100 percent opposite day.
They don't have an advantage? Have you informed Fauxohontas Warren of that?
DEI and affirmative action socio-economically advantages white people... who knew???
Which is everyday, 24/7/365 to you.
Race is essential, so Help me... I'm a black or minority victim of white supremacy.... it's my race, not my lazy-ass toxic masculine Black Cracker Culture holding me back! Snitches be my bitches...
Dervy the snitches gonna get him some stitches.
...cuz I gotta ask you Darvo Derv, what color are you, and what race you be shaming?
...and aren't you just looksmaxxing?
Maybe if you hit yourself in the face repeatedly, your skin will turn black & blue
Minus: They don't have an advantage? Have you informed Fauxohontas Warren of that?
I can't. Because "Fauxohontas Warren" is imaginary. And Elizabeth Warren (the real person) wasn't given any advantage.
Merit-based hire: Harvard Law School faculty members stated she was recruited strictly for her preeminent expertise in commercial and bankruptcy law.
No prior knowledge: Administrators and committee members involved in her hiring stated they were entirely unaware of her familial claims regarding Native American roots when she was hired. Via the g00gle AI.
Minus: DEI and affirmative action socio-economically advantages white people... who knew???
White Supremacists like you don't know, that's for sure. But it does socio-economically advantage White people. It's bad when unqualified Whites are placed in important positions and screw things up. If a minority hire can do a better job but isn't considered and the job is given to a less qualified White person, that's a bad result. And it is definitely without question beneficial to society for minorities to not be resentful of "the man" keeping them down. But, as a White Supremacist, you want to increase racial strife. Are you a fan of the Turner Diaries and someone who would be happy if there was a "race war"?
Minus: it's my race, not my lazy-ass toxic masculine Black Cracker Culture holding me back!
That's the "Reverse Victim and Offender" portion of "darvo"🙄🙄
Minus: ...cuz I gotta ask you{inapplicable descriptor] Derv, what color are you, and what race you be shaming?
I was born White. I'm still White and believe that being ashamed for being White would be moronic. I have never shamed anyone for being whatever race they are. That's just one of your many delusions.
So Joe Biden appointed Kentanji Brown Jackson to SCotUS because there were no qualified white judges or lawyers around? THAT's you argument? lol!
...and all this time I thought it was because Democrats needed another race-essentialist Cracker on the Court.
You don't just shame "white" supremacy? Then why not denounce "supremacy" and leave the race out of it? How about "colonial" supremacy, do you shame colonialists that crash the US southern border hoping to reclaim America for La Raza?
Do you know how the term "gringo" originated?
Do you know the difference between a 'Greek' and a 'barbarian'?
"Friends, Romans, Countrymen... lend me your ears!"
Who Is a Barbarian?
Foreigners in the Ancient Greek Language
In Ancient Greece, "barbarian" (from the Greek bárbaros) simply referred to anyone who did not speak Greek or follow Hellenic customs. It was originally an onomatopoeic term used to mock the sound of foreign languages, which sounded to Greek ears like unintelligible "bar-bar" babbling.
The term was not always an insult. Early writers like Herodotus used it relatively neutrally to describe foreigners such as the Persians or Egyptians. However, following the Greco-Persian Wars, the word began to carry deep connotations of cultural inferiority, suggesting that non-Greeks lacked order, philosophy, and self-restraint.
Key characteristics of this ancient concept include:
The "Babbler": The Greek word barbaros stems from the sound of foreign, non-Greek tongues, similar to how modern speakers might say "blah blah".
Cultural Boundaries: Greekness was tied to language and traditions. Even fellow Greeks could be accused of "barbarizing" if they adopted the customs of foreigners.
Roman Evolution: When the Romans conquered Greece, they were initially viewed as barbarians. However, the Romans eventually adopted the term for themselves, shifting the definition to mean anyone who lacked Greco-Roman civilization.
Talk about oikophobia... @@
Oikophobia is the direct psychological and cultural mirror image of xenophobia. While xenophobia is the fear or hatred of foreigners (the "barbarians"), oikophobia is the rejection or hatred of one's own home, culture, or native community.
The term combines two Greek words: oikos (meaning house, home, or family) and phobia (fear/aversion).
The Connection to Greeks and Barbarians
In the context of the Greek-versus-barbarian dynamic, these concepts form a cultural continuum:
Xenophobia (The Classical Baseline): As established, classical Greek identity was built on a fierce pride in the oikos and the polis (city-state), contrasting itself against the bárbaros. To the average Greek, foreign customs were inferior.
The Rise of Oikophobia: Oikophobia occurs when an individual or a segment of a society turns that criticism inward. Instead of viewing the "barbarian" as the threat, they begin to view their own culture as backward, oppressive, or crude, while romanticizing foreign cultures as superior or "pure".
The "Barbarizing" Greek: In antiquity, when a Greek citizen abandoned Hellenic customs, stopped participating in shared sacrifices, or adopted Persian luxury and political submission, they were accused of "barbarizing". This was an early, practical manifestation of oikophobia—preferring the ways of the outsider over the traditions of the home.
Modern Evolution of the Term
The word has evolved through two distinct lenses:
Clinical Psychiatry: Originally coined in the 19th century, it was used to describe a literal psychiatric phobia of a house, home space, or domestic appliances.
Political Philosophy: Modern philosopher Roger Scruton popularized the term in the late 20th century to describe a political mindset. He defined it as the disposition among cultural elites to denigrate national loyalties, mock traditional homegrown values, and eagerly embrace foreign or globalist ideas instead.
aka - self-hating Democrats
self-hating Democrats = imaginary.
So what explains their Looksmaxxing ethnic and gay candidates
Are they all semiotics majors/
Best virtue signal than you not one of the racist-baddy whites before you answer, Darvo Derv
Minus: So Joe Biden appointed Kentanji Brown Jackson to SCotUS because there were no qualified white judges or lawyers around? THAT's you argument? lol!
wtf? I've never made that argument. There are many factors that go into consideration when hiring someone. And there will always be "more qualified" candidates. KBJ was Black (which was a consideration) but also very highly qualified. And her background as a public defender gives her a unique qualification, as no other supreme court justice ever has had that qualification.
Minus: and all this time I thought it was because Democrats needed another race-essentialist Cracker on the Court.
There are currently zero Democratic potus appointed "race-essentialist Crackers" on the Supreme Court. To have "another" there would first need to be one.
Minus: So what explains their Looksmaxxing ethnic and gay candidates.
I'm unaware of any such candidates. I think you imagined them in your delusions.
Her being black, her RACE, was THE ESSENTIAL consideration. Thomas needed a "spare"? lol!
Why only one white guy out of 7 candidates in NY? Does NY's DSA have a VFW (very few whites) chapter? Ida thought they'be be 85% + white if they weren't looksmaxxing.
I do get it, though. Democrats only enforce quotas for brown candidates.
Don't worry oh ignorant one, jc. The fascist authoritarian YOU support is working day and night to insure voter suppression (the illegal activity to disenfranchise POC) once again becomes reality. The New trumpublican Jim Crow era.
Thomas doesn't need a spare. He needs to be impeached and removed for being the most corrupt justice in american history. And I think there could be some charges brought in regards to all the obvious bribes he has accepted. But ghwb should have withdrawn his nomination when it was revealed he was a sexual harasser, so he should never even have made it to the court.
As I recall, Thomas blamed all the objections on his being Black (played the race card). And he clearly wasn't the best candidate for the job. Surely a more qualified White man could have been found. Thomas claims to be an originalist, but votes in favor of maximizing the power of the executive branch. The Founders wouldn't have supported the "unitary executive" theory that gives the potus kingly powers.
Who are the White people who wanted to run for office but were blocked by the DSA in favor of a minority candidate. Since you're claiming that there should have been White candidates, you should be able to prove that some whites wanted to run but were blocked. Perhaps by providing some names or linking to a story about internal DSA communications where the strategy of endorsing minority candidates was discussed. But I'm doubting you can give any such evidence. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking it's a safe bet to guess you can't give that evidence. I don't know anything about how the DSA's candidates were arrived at. I think you also don't know.
btw, if that was the strategy I wouldn't immediately be opposed to it. Due to my belief that more minorities serving in government is a good idea. Though, if there was a white man or woman who wanted the job but was shut out -- and they would have been a superior candidate -- I think that wouldn't be good. I take all the facts into consideration, while you just see "too many" minority candidates and immediately object. Due to being a White Supremacist.
Maybe Dems should have confirmed Bork, Ginsberg or Souter instead.
And Thomas' failed Anita Hill "passes" were sexual harrassment? I thought he boosted her career and helped her after she was "harrassed".. Or am I dreaming?
Blacks, at 18.6% of all federal civil servants, are OVER-represented in the Deep State thanks to the Democratic Party patronage system commonly known as "affirmative action".
The DSA doesn't practice affirmative action/ DEI? Are you sure, Darvo Dervy?
Max quota on cisgen men
Min quotas for all others,
Neo-sexism and neo-racism in "spades"
Are there inclusivity requirements?
Yes, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) integrates explicit inclusivity, anti-oppression, and diversity requirements into both their candidate vetting and internal governance structures. These mandates are handled across multiple operational levels:
1. Candidate Prioritization Guidelines
While exact guidelines can vary slightly by local chapter, many local bylaws specifically mandate that chapters prioritize candidates from historically marginalized groups for official election endorsements.
2. Comprehensive Platform Vetting
During the screening process, candidates must answer detailed endorsement questionnaires. To secure the necessary member supermajority, candidates must demonstrate absolute alignment with the DSA's national platform, Workers Deserve More, which dictates strict policy requirements regarding:
Immigration justice (e.g., calling for the legalization of migration and full amnesty regardless of status).
Anti-racism and civil rights.
Gender, LGBTQ+, and cultural equity (requiring an explicit commitment to restructuring societal and workplace relationships to be non-oppressive).
3. Member & Campaign Code of Conduct
All endorsed candidates, their campaign staff, and volunteers are bound by the DSA Code of Conduct. Candidates are strictly barred from participating in or tolerating harassment or discrimination based on race, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or class.
4. Internal Leadership Diversity Quotas
To reflect these intersectional values within their own organization, the DSA enforces strict diversity requirements for its highest steering body, the National Political Committee (NPC). Under the DSA National Constitution, the 16-member NPC must adhere to strict demographic caps:
Democratic Socialists of America
No more than eight members can be cisgender men.
At least five seats must be explicitly reserved for people of color.
Quotas for sex and race aren't fascist? Who knew?
Minus: Blacks, at 18.6% of all federal civil servants, are OVER-represented in the Deep State thanks to the Democratic Party patronage system commonly known as "affirmative action".
Civil Servants aren't screened or hired for political affiliation with any party. They would absolutely hire a Black republican applicant. Also, so what if more Black people feel like a government job is the way to go than White people (re each of their respective percent representation in public at large)? I don't give a poop and don't think that percent representation in civil service jobs should match percent makeup in the population at large.
Minus: The DSA doesn't practice affirmative action/ DEI? Are you sure, Darvo Dervy? Yes, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) integrates explicit inclusivity, anti-oppression, and diversity requirements into both their candidate vetting and internal governance structures.
How should I know what "Darvo Dervy" is sure or not sure about? Why are you asking me, as I'm not that person. I know I never said I know how they arrive at candidates and was absolutely sure. If your info is accurate, then I say that's a good thing and I approve. Those are all positives. Though obviously negatives for a White Supremacist like you.
This is the g00gle AI response to your "Democratic Party patronage system" BS...
🤖The core argument that a 18.6% representation of Black employees in the federal civil service proves a Democratic "political patronage" system is factually and legally incorrect.
The federal civil service explicitly bans political affiliation from hiring decisions, and agencies are legally barred from asking about it. Furthermore, the federal government cannot simply "award" these jobs to specific voters, as the entire system is governed by strict, merit-based hiring laws designed to prevent political favoritism. [1]
To address the commenter's assertion that federal employment percentages must perfectly match the general population, you can use several established structural, historical, and geographic counter-arguments.
## 1. The Legal Separation: Civil Service vs. Political Patronage.
The modern U.S. civil service was specifically created to destroy political patronage.
* The Pendleton Act of 1883: This law abolished the old "spoils system" (where politicians rewarded voters with government jobs) and replaced it with a merit-based system utilizing competitive exams. [2, 3, 4]
* The Hatch Act: This law prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activity while on duty and bars officials from using their authority to interfere with or affect elections.
* Civil Service Protections: Career civil servants cannot be hired or fired based on political party. Only about 4,000 "political appointments" change with a new presidential administration; the remaining 2.2 million career civil service jobs are entirely insulated from political shifts. [5]
## 2. The Geographic Reality (The "Where" Matters).
The commenter assumes federal jobs are distributed perfectly evenly across the entire U.S. population, but they are highly concentrated in specific regions.
* The DMV Region: The largest concentration of federal jobs is in the Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia (DMV) metropolitan area.
* Local Demographics: The population of Washington, D.C., is roughly 45% Black, and Maryland is over 31% Black. Because federal agencies recruit heavily from the local populations surrounding their headquarters, the demographic makeup of the workforce naturally reflects the highly diverse regions where the jobs physically exist.
## 3. The Military-to-Civil-Service Pipeline (The Veteran Preference).
One of the largest drivers of federal hiring is the Veterans' Preference system, which gives military veterans a major advantage when applying for civil service jobs.
* Overrepresentation in the Military: Black Americans make up about 13% of the general population but account for roughly 17% to 19% of active-duty military personnel. [6]
* The Automatic Transition: Because Black Americans are statistically overrepresented in the military, they enter the civilian job market with Veterans' Preference points at a higher rate. This naturally funnels a larger percentage of Black applicants into successful federal careers, entirely independent of politics.
## 4. Historic Non-Discrimination Protections.
The federal government became a major employer of Black Americans decades before the private sector did, creating a generational pipeline. [7]
* Early Desegregation: In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802, banning racial discrimination in the federal government and defense industries—long before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forced the private sector to do the same.
[continued from prior comment]
* A Legacy of Stability: Because the federal government offered equal pay scales and protection from explicit racial discrimination when private companies would not, it became a foundational, multi-generational career path for Black families. Children and grandchildren of civil servants frequently follow the same stable career tracks.
## Summary Point for Your Discussion.
The 18.6% figure is a reflection of geography (where the jobs are located), military service (veteran preferences), and historic labor protections, not a political reward. The commenter's theory falls apart because it ignores basic hiring laws and assumes a federal workforce can be manipulated by a political party, which has been a federal crime for over 140 years.
[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/01/04/updated-do-russia-probe-attorneys-donations-to-democrats-threaten-their-independence/)
[2] [https://thehill.com](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5595131-unions-trump-administration-loyalty-question-lawsuit/)
[3] [https://www.meritalk.com](https://www.meritalk.com/articles/unions-challenge-trump-administration-loyalty-test-in-federal-hiring/)
[4] [https://news.ku.edu](https://news.ku.edu/news/article/2022/02/17/public-administration-should-consider-effects-whiteness-masculinity-well-representation)
[5] [https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu](https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/civil-servants-political-ideology)
[6] [https://www.niskanencenter.org](https://www.niskanencenter.org/why-are-black-conservatives-still-democrats/)
[7] [https://aninjusticemag.com](https://aninjusticemag.com/the-promise-was-for-everyone-the-pain-fell-on-one-group-1768796b7de2)
Minus: Quotas for sex and race aren't fascist? Who knew?
🤖g00gle AI response...
The blog commenter’s assertion is factually incorrect on two major fronts. First, strict race and sex-based hiring quotas are completely illegal in the United States and have been for decades. Second, labeling the concept as "fascist" represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what fascism actually is. [1, 2]
When addressing this assertion, you can break your counter-argument into a clear legal reality and a political science correction.
## 1. The Legal Reality: Hiring Quotas Do Not Exist in the U.S.
The commenter is arguing against a policy that is already illegal under federal law. The U.S. legal system strictly prohibits the use of hard quotas based on protected characteristics like race and sex. [2, 3]
* Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This foundational law explicitly makes it a federal crime for any employer—government or private—to hire, fire, or refuse to hire an individual based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. [3, 4, 5]
* The Supreme Court Rules Out Quotas: The U.S. Supreme Court struck down strict racial quotas back in the 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, ruling that setting aside fixed numerical slots for specific races violates the U.S. Constitution. [1, 6]
* Goals vs. Quotas: Programs like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) or Affirmative Action often use "aspirational goals" or expanded outreach to ensure a diverse applicant pool, but they cannot legally force an employer to hire someone based on identity over qualifications. If an agency uses a hard quota to reject qualified applicants based on race or sex, they can be sued for discrimination. [7, 8, 9, 10]
## 2. The Political Science Reality: Quotas Are Not "Fascist".
Even if quotas did exist, calling them "fascist" is historically and ideologically inaccurate. Fascism is a specific political ideology with defined traits, and diversity initiatives represent the exact opposite goals.
* Fascism Enforces Hierarchy, Not Equality: Historically, fascist regimes (like Mussolini’s Italy or Nazi Germany) actively rejected the idea of equal opportunity or equal rights. They institutionalized strict ethno-nationalist hierarchies where minority groups were systematically stripped of jobs, rights, and citizenship. [11]
* The Opposite Intent: Inclusion programs aim to dismantle historical barriers and broaden access to competitive job markets. Fascism seeks to tightly control and limit who is allowed to participate in public life based on a dominant group. [2, 9]
* The Proper Term for the Commenter's View: If the commenter believes a policy unfairly favors one group over another, the appropriate political and legal terms are "reverse discrimination" or "statutory overreach". Labeling it "fascism" is simply using an aggressive, inaccurate buzzword to shut down nuanced policy discussion. [2, 12]
## Summary Point for Your Discussion.
The commenter is using an inaccurate historical label ("fascist") to describe a practice ("hiring quotas") that has already been unconstitutional and federally illegal for nearly 50 years. Under current regulations enforced by agencies like the [U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)] (https://www.eeoc.gov/employees-job-applicants), all federal civil service hiring must be dictated strictly by applicant qualifications and individual merit. [1, 13]
Sources.
[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States)
[2] [https://diversejobsmatter.co.uk](https://diversejobsmatter.co.uk/blog/busting-the-myths-debunking-common-misconceptions-about-affirmative-action/)
[3] [https://www.eeoc.gov](https://www.eeoc.gov/employees-job-applicants)
[4] [https://news.bloomberglaw.com](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/affirmative-action-ruling-sets-up-clash-over-workplace-diversity)
[5] [https://blogs.illinois.edu](https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/809608)
[6] [https://www.dlapiper.com](https://www.dlapiper.com/en-us/insights/publications/2023/07/supreme-court-decision-ending-affirmative-action)
[7] [https://www.reddit.com](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1pftsna/cmv_dei_policy_is_racist/)
[8] [https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu](https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2023/07/25/racial-targets/)
[9] [https://www.linkedin.com](https://www.linkedin.com/top-content/recruitment-hr/diversity-in-the-workplace/misconceptions-about-dei-quotas-in-the-workplace/)
[10] [https://fullfact.org](https://fullfact.org/education/factcheck-can-white-teachers-be-discriminated-against/)
[11] [https://en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action)
[12] [https://en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_quota)
[13] [https://www.youtube.com](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nex_TIdmWQY&t=6)
Via the Google AI...
Workplace Harassment vs. "Making a Pass".
Your critique of the blog commenter's terminology aligns closely with legal and modern definition.
Anita Hill did not describe a standard romantic advance or a simple "failed pass". She alleged a sustained pattern of severe quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment testifying that Thomas:
* Repeatedly pressured her to go out with him despite frequent, explicit rejections.
* Used professional, one-on-one workplace meetings to vividly describe pornographic films and his own sexual prowess.
* Threatened to derail her legal career if she ever spoke out about his behavior.
Because these allegations describe an abuse of supervisory power and unwelcome, graphic sexual behavior in a government office, historians and legal experts categorize the events as a milestone workplace harassment case rather than a personal or romantic rejection🛑
You view sexual harassment as a failed pass due to being a serious misogynist.
Also a bigly hypocrite, given your criticism of Bill Clinton for his consensual affair with Monica Lewinski. When she was the one doing the pressuring (not that he should have yielded to it).
But I guess you think it's fine for Republicans to sexually harass people under them in the workplace. While you think Democrats are completely in the wrong if they are persued by a subordinate in the workplace and give in.
Minus: I thought he boosted her career and helped her after she was "harrassed".. Or am I dreaming?
🤖Via the g00gle AI...
The commenter is indeed "dreaming" if they believe Thomas actively mentored and elevated Hill out of benevolence after she complained.Thomas did not help her build a career; rather, Hill's employment was structurally dependent on him during her early years in Washington.
The commenter is using a classic victim-blaming narrative—arguing that because a victim stayed in a job or maintained a professional relationship with an abuser to survive economically, the abuse must not have occurred.🛑
I think that Hill should have just given him a Monica.
We ran the numbers and probabilities last week Derv. It's still 0% this week.
btw- what % of black voters vote democrat? Isn't that almost a guarantee of hiring a democrat?
The odds of a Black voter hired for the federal civil service being a Republican are roughly 5% to 10%
The odds of a Black voter hired for the federal civil service being a Democrat are roughly 80% to 85%.If you expand this to include independents who lean toward the Democratic party, the odds rise to roughly 90% to 92%..
The federal civil service explicitly bans political affiliation from hiring decisions, and agencies are legally barred from asking about it. Furthermore, the federal government cannot simply "award" these jobs to spec
Who needs to ask if you know "statistics"? Every black hired is 90% likely Democrat.
The Stench of Joe Conservative's fear at losing his white privilege status is palatable.
Post a Comment