![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/Diversity_Toolkit_HERO.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Of all the corrupt, money-sucking fiefdoms on campus, none is more dangerous than the Diversity fiefdoms. Most people think our campuses are divided into departments and those certainly exist, but the departments only generate revenue for the school, providing classes for students to take. Much of that revenue pours in \u201cinstitutes,\u201d little fiefdoms which few, if any, students know about, and are given such a blank check to spend money that it\u2019s not unheard of to have multiple embezzlement schemes in the same fiefdom<\/a>.<\/p>\n These places are also hotbeds of Social Justice Warrior activity, and are generally packed with \u201cNPCs\u201d all thinking the same thoughts and chanting the same words. Recently, a Diversity fiefdom at Amherst college, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, released a guide to have shared language about identity<\/a>. I\u2019ll just say \u201cI can\u2019t make this stuff up\u201d only a single time, right here, though so many of these \u201cdefinitions\u201d are beyond belief as well as my apparently quite limited imagination.<\/p>\n This is a list of carefully researched and thoughtfully discussed definitions for key diversity and inclusion terms\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n I want to point out from the above, these aren\u2019t the ramblings of some late-stage psychotic alchemist or something, a group of lunatics actually thought about what they were writing, considered it, and published it. Granted, these people are self-evidently insane\u2026but I feel like picking on them all the same.<\/p>\n Accomplice: A term coined by Indigenous Action Network to critique the ways in which \u201cally\u201d as an identity term has been deployed absent of action, accountability, or risk-taking.<\/em><\/p>\n Is that really the definition of accomplice the gentle reader is familiar with? I\u2019m not even sure what\u2019s trying to be said here. Keep in mind, they thought about this new definition, and thought it superior to the usual definition of the word.<\/p>\n Collusion: Thinking and acting in ways that support dominant systems of power, privilege, and oppression. Both privileged and oppressed groups can collude with oppression. Example: Able-bodied people who object to strategies for making buildings accessible because of the expense.<\/em><\/p>\n Whew, good thing there was an example there. Seriously, how does anyone think like this? Maybe this is why the Russian \u201ccollusion\u201d investigation fell apart? Even when the definition starts out pretty clear, they toss in extra stuff to create confusion:<\/p>\n Equality: treating everyone exactly the same. An equality emphasis often ignores historical and structural factors that benefit some social groups\/communities and harm other social groups\/communities.<\/em><\/p>\n As near as I can tell, these aren\u2019t so much definitions as they are total crap something else. For the most part, this guide is just weird, but sometimes it goes off the deep end:<\/p>\n Myth of Scarcity: Used to pit people against each other, this is the fostering of the belief that resources are limited\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n The \u201cbelief\u201d that resources are limited? Seriously? Yes, they\u2019re serious. I hardly know how to manage the cognitive disconnect here. If they honestly believe resources are not limited, then how can they ask for affirmative action, inclusion, reparations or anything else? What does it matter if there are infinite resources?<\/p>\n It just goes on and on:<\/p>\n Reverse Oppression: There is no such thing as reverse oppression\u2026.<\/em><\/p>\n ?????????? They literally define an existing term as not existing. The \u201cdefinition\u201d of this alleged non-concept finishes with an example of it not happening:<\/em><\/p>\n \u2026women cannot be \u201cjust as sexist\u201d as men because they do not hold political, economic, and institutional power.<\/em><\/p>\n Wow, Hillary Clinton never held any political power as Secretary of State? No institutional power in The Clinton Foundation? What? I\u2019m just so puzzled here. The term Social Justice is used often, and thankfully (?) the guide gives us a huge definition:<\/p>\n Social Justice:<\/em><\/p>\n 1. An anti-oppression orientation to social and political organization.<\/em><\/p>\n For this first part, note how \u201csocial justice\u201d usually leads to anti-white discrimination. I\u2019d call this reverse discrimination, or reverse oppression, but apparently that doesn\u2019t exist. Good thing I have this guide to assist the way I think, Orwellian-style. The definition continues:<\/p>\n 2. The process and goal of addressing the root causes of institutional and structural \u201c-isms.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n We\u2019ll have to get to \u2018isms\u2019 later\u2026but how can you address them without oppression?<\/p>\n 3. A vision of the world where all groups of people can live (and be perceived) as fully human on all levels (personal, social, institutional, and structural).<\/em><\/p>\n Huh, isn\u2019t this a bit circular? I mean, if they are people, they\u2019re human, right? The fourth definition is long, and completely demented. I\u2019ll edit it down for semi-coherence:<\/p>\n 4. A vision of the world not rooted in the dominance of any one group\u2026not be rooted in a scarcity model that devalues things that are abundant\u2026and highly values that which is scarce or rare.<\/em><\/p>\n This is a viable model? Human reality has always valued the scarce over the common, it\u2019s how things have worked for thousands of years. I really want to point out that all communist movements make the above claim and, in short order, food becomes very scarce, every single time. What also happens every single time is this scarce commodity only ends up in the hands of the people at the top. You\u2019d have to be a lunatic to think of this as a \u201cmodel\u201d humans should pursue, and yet we have a whole fiefdom here which thinks this way.<\/p>\n So let\u2019s get to those \u2013isms. Ageism is simple enough, but things quickly turn weird:<\/p>\n Cissexism: the system of belief that cisgender individuals are the privileged class and are more natural, normal or acceptable than transgender, genderqueer, nonbinary, and\/or gender-nonconforming people. This believe manifests as denial of rights to trans and nonbinary people and their routine mistreatment.<\/em><\/p>\n I\u2019ve mentioned before that words like \u201cnormal\u201d and \u201cnatural\u201d are well-defined terms<\/a>, and absolutely apply to what this manifesto is referring to as cisgender (i.e., heterosexual) people. As far as rights, well, we do have a system of law here, I really don\u2019t think people who are not cisgender are \u201croutine\u201d in having such rights denied. It\u2019s an unsurprising definition, since the insane often have hallucinations.<\/p>\n If you ever want to know what racism is, the guide provides a huge definition. Hysterically, this definition includes the unequal distribution of resources\u2014fundamentally impossible if you believe resources are infinite. Again, mental inconsistency is par for the course for the irrational.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a 40 page guide,<\/a> and after a mere 8 pages I feel much stupider for reading it. I will not continue. I only include the link for the particularly iron-willed to peruse. I have my doubts concerning the ability to get useful information about the lunatics slowly taking over our campus, for one simple reason: these people are nothing if not hypocritical. They don\u2019t believe or adhere to any of this stuff the second it doesn\u2019t suit them, ever.<\/p>\n That said, the link is very hard evidence that such maniacs really do exist on our campuses, and are paid huge sums of money to come up with this dross. They\u2019re paid from the student loan scam. End it.<\/p>\n www.professorconfess.blogspot.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"