“Educate Yourself”: Seattle Human Rights Commission Dismisses Complaint Over Requiring Whites To Pay “Reparations Fees” For Pride Event

There is a controversy in Seattle over plans for a pride event to charge people more based on their race. The Seattle Human Rights Commission is under fire this week after sending a letter dismissing a complaint over the announcement that the Taking B(l)ack Pride on June 26th would charge White entrants a “reparations” fee. The Commission told Charlette LeFevre and Philip Lipson of Capitol Hill Pride that they needed to “educate” themselves and consider the harm that they would cause by being participants in the event.  Update: While the response of the Commission caused outrage from many, Lipson and LeFevre quickly apologized for even raising the issue.

Promotional material for Taking B(l)ack Pride was posted on Facebook as a “BLACK AND BROWN QUEER TRANS CENTERED, PRIORITIZED, VALUED, EVENT.” The Facebook page adds: “White allies and accomplices are welcome to attend but will be charged a $10 to $50 reparations fee that will be used to keep this event free of cost for BLACK AND BROWN Trans and Queer COMMUNITY.”

Capitol Hill Pride organizers Philip Lipson and Charlette LeFevre  took offense and wrote to the Commission that “We consider this reverse discrimination in its worse (sic) form and we feel we are being attacked for not supporting due to disparaging and hostile e-mails. Please review this event’s stated admission policy as we feel this event is violating Seattle, King County, State and Federal equality laws.”

It would seem a fair complaint since the event was engaging in open racial discrimination. After all, the Seattle Human Rights Commission advises the city “in order to educate them on methods to prevent and eliminate discrimination city-wide.”  Lipson and LeFevre however received a letter that shamed them for even raising a racially discriminatory practice.

The Commission not only shamed them but posted the response so others could read.  The Commission advised them if possible, to “educate yourself on the harm it may cause Seattle’s BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) in your pursuit of a free ticket to an event that is not expressly meant for you and your entertainment.”

The Commission stressed that charging people more based on race does not violate Take B(l)ack Pride “does not in fact violate any of your human rights as stated in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.” The Commission justified the discriminatory policy on the basis of past discrimination against these groups:

“They often face shame not only from the cis-heteronormative community, but within the queer community at large as well. In making the event free for the Black Queer Community, the organizers of this event are extending a courtesy so rarely extended; by providing a free and safe space to express joy, share story, and be in community.

…Furthermore, we would urge you to examine the very real social dynamics and ramifications of this issue.”

We recently discussed how the Biden Administration has been held to be discriminating in different programs giving preferences based on race and gender. What is interesting is that the Commission only considers itself as operating under the United Nations Declaration and makes no reference to the United States Constitution which prohibits such discrimination. Indeed, racist organizations once justified excluding minorities from lunch counters and events based on the claim that such spaces are not set aside for such individual or their entertainment.

Nevertheless, such “justice pricing” is in vogue. Groups are now increasing asserting that they should be allowed to engage in raw discrimination as victims of past discrimination.

This is a private group but it appears to be selling tickets and may require a city permit. The city anti-discrimination laws cover all public accommodations and prohibit discrimination based on race.  The Seattle Office for Civil Rights enforces Seattle’s civil rights laws which include protections against discrimination in employment, public places, housing, and contracting.

Notably, this sensitive subject has led to some sharp words even on the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts famously wrote in 2007 that “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”  In 2014, the Court ruled 6-2 in Schuette v. Bamn, that Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning affirmative action was constitutional.  Justice Sotomayor chided Roberts with a reframing of his famous line by saying: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” She went on to write in dissent:

“Race matters. Race matters in part because of the long history of racial minorities being denied access to the political process. … Race also matters because of persistent racial inequality in society — inequality that cannot be ignored and that has produced stark socioeconomic disparities.

And race matters for reasons that really are only skin deep, that cannot be discussed any other way, and that cannot be wished away…Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: ‘I do not belong here.'”

“The dissent states that ‘[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race.’ And it urges that ‘[r]ace matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: ‘I do not belong here.’

But it is not ‘out of touch with reality’ to conclude that racial preferences may themselves have the debilitating effect of reinforcing precisely that doubt, and — if so — that the preferences do more harm than good. To disagree with the dissent’s views on the costs and benefits of racial preferences is not to ‘wish away, rather than confront’ racial inequality. People can disagree in good faith on this issue, but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate.”

What is disconcerting is not just the dismissive attitude of the Commission but how it views discriminatory policies as secondary or irrelevant to human rights if it favors particular groups.  It does not matter that people are treated differently solely on the basis of their race. Indeed, it does not even warrant a consideration of countervailing constitutional and legal authorities. It is done in the name of equity and thus it is treated as not just correct but beyond question. Indeed, an objection to the policy is treated as a lack of understanding and sensitivity, requiring further education.

The question is now what the City of Seattle will do and whether a court will give this matter more thought than did the Seattle Human Rights Commission.  However, Lipson and LeFevre are not likely to raise the matter. They apologized for even raising the issue after a torrent of criticism and cancellations of their own event. They declared themselves educated and regretful as the Commission suggested.

 

 

199 thoughts on ““Educate Yourself”: Seattle Human Rights Commission Dismisses Complaint Over Requiring Whites To Pay “Reparations Fees” For Pride Event”

  1. Slavery and slaves are at the foundation of Western Monotheism.
    Two small examples.

    First from the second story, biblical myth, so-called Exodus, attributed from the Hebrew “God” to a one “Moses.” (Note: what or how are “Hebrew” slaves differentiated from “goyim slaves?)

    Second from the biblical Hebrew super hero, to a “Jesus of Nazareth.”

    Exodus 21; Slavery;
    1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
    2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
    3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
    4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.
    5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
    6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
    7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
    8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
    9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
    10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
    11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
    12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
    13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
    14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
    15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
    16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
    17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
    18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
    19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
    20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
    21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
    22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
    23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
    24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
    25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
    26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.
    27 And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.
    28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.
    29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
    30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
    31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.
    32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
    33 And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein;
    34 The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.
    35 And if one man’s ox hurt another’s, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide.
    36 Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.
    King James Version (KJV)

    Jesus: biblical Hebrew super hero
    slavery; slaves
    Matthew 18:25; Luke 12:47 and Matthew 24:51

    Jesus not only condones owning slaves, but also recommends beating and killing slaves. Matthew 18:25; Luke 12:47 and Matthew 24:51

    Matthew 18:25, where Jesus uses slaves in a parable and has no qualms about recommending that not only a slave but also his wife and family be sold, while in other parables Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:51).

    Christian apologists attempt to justify the “Bible’s” slavery passages.

    Argument 1: “Slavery in the Bible was more enlightened than that of 17th-19th century America and other ancient Near East cultures.”
    Even granting this point for the sake of argument, this fails to answer the simple question: is owning another human ever moral, or not? The relative kindness of a slave owner does not enter into the basic moral question of owning other humans as property.
    Argument 2: “They could be let go after 6 years” or “It was a mechanism for protecting those who could not pay their debts.” (a.k.a. “Debt bondage”)
    “Hebrew slaves were to be freed in the 7th year (Exodus 21:2, Deuteronomy 15:12-18). Slaves from surrounding countries could be kept as property forever (Leviticus 25:44-46). A further exception pertains to women whose fathers sold them into slavery, and for whom there was no release after six years ( Exodus 21:7)
    Argument 3: The Bible restricted slave owners’ actions (Exodus 21:20).
    Exodus 21:20 does mandate punishment for a master who kills a slave with a rod, but the very next verse says “But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property” (NRSV). The NIV, by contrast, translates this verse as “if the slave recovers after a day or two”, which changes its meaning. Either way, the emphasis is that the slave is first and foremost property, and therefore the greatest loss is to the owner, whose slave was “as good as money”.
    Argument 4: “Slavery was allowed by God because of the time period, but was not the ideal will of God.”
    There are many ways a creative, all-knowing and all-powerful deity could make it clear that slavery is immoral while, for instance, giving the Israelite economy a grace period to let slavery “wind down”, should that be necessary. The passages concerning slavery from the
    Pentateuch (e.g. Exodus 21:2-7; Leviticus 25:44-46),
    by contrast, provide guidelines that allow for slavery to continue indefinitely. New Testament writers, too, who had an opportunity to overturn or clarify the Pentateuch’s instructions, did not do so.
    Also it seems improbable that a God who was capable of assassinating Israelites by the thousand if they did not follow his instructions to the letter would balk at telling them to give up slaves.
    Argument 5: “The term ‘slave’ is a poor translation. It should be ‘servant’.”
    This may be plausible in some contexts, but not for Leviticus 25:46, which specifically allows that slaves are property who may be inherited by the owner’s children and kept for life. This passage makes no sense unless they are discussing slavery — permanent ownership of one human by another — as we know it today.
    Jesus’ Parable of the Unforgiving Servant
    (Matthew 18:23) makes no sense if said “servant” is not a slave, since the master has the power to sell both the “servant”, his wife and his children (Matthew 18:25).
    It also makes little sense in the case of Matthew 24:51 in which these “servants” may be not only beaten by their master (as in Luke 12:47), but that the master “shall cut him asunder” in the words of the King James translation.

    Sometimes people don’t want to hear (know?) the truth because it destroys their illusions.

    dennis hanna

    1. The original words had meaning in a different time, different place, a different context. They haven’t had the force of law for over 2000 years. The Torah and Bible, separately, and together, record history and offer warnings about secular excess. The original meaning of “slave” was indentured, to mitigate the progress of redistributive change through shared/shifted responsibility. There was also a warning against elective abortion (“murder”), and that, too, has been ignored. Social justice, democratic/dictatorial progress, and diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment) are clear and progressive risks under the modern, nominally “secular” religion: Pro-Choice. For example, where Nazis brayed about Jew privilege, neo-Nazis bray about White privilege.

      1. For those that want to play the blame game, time and context are not considered. The reading of other old writings and archaeology they ignore. When one starts from a negative viewpoint they will not understand the writing. Example: Exodus 21 2 is explained by 3. A Hebrew could not be purchased unless that Hebrew sold himself. .

        1. Each religion, whether morality in a universal frame, its relativistic sibling ethics, or their politically congruent cousin law, normalizes some mode of reconciliation of rights and responsibilities to normalize a functional society.

    2. Slavery existed long before “western monotheism” and that term is inaccurate since monotheism originates in the middle east. It is a toss up between Judaism and Zoroastrianism of ancient Persia as to which is older. Slavery is even older than monotheism and was conducted in almost every ancient civilization, centuries before their were Hebrews whose lineage starts with a couple from Chaldea.

      What truth can you relate to others over 2500 years later from reading ancient text. If you don’t like religion that is your prerogative, but it does not make you a well-informed spreader of truth.

  2. “In making the event free for the Black Queer Community, the organizers of this event are extending a courtesy so rarely extended;”. Actually, in making an event free only to black people, the organizers implied that black people are all poor, and can’t possibly afford a ticket like anyone else.

    The bigotry of low expectations.

      1. It’s not a swag bag or a borrowed gown at the Oscars, filled with the hopes that swanky celebrities will become prominent customers.

        The implication is that black people can’t afford it, and white people can. It’s insulting.

  3. The Seattle Human Rights Commission is an unconstitutional, anti-American, communist organization which promotes the nullification and abrogation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and the imposition of the principles of the Communist Manifesto, as it engages “…in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…,” including, but not limited to, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Russia et al.,and the Seattle Human Rights Commission must be prosecuted with extreme prejudice and to the fullest extent of the law for capital acts (i.e. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg) of treason against the United States and the U.S. Constitution.

  4. What’s the controversy? This is a racist taxation policy. Actual, bona fide, systemic racism in Seattle.

    There are no laws on the books expressly targeting black people. But I was wrong when I used to claim that there was no systemic racism in America. The Left has succeeded in reestablishing the vile practice. Universities systematically discriminate against Asians in admissions. They are deemed too successful.

    The folly of it all stems from the belief that diversity is skin deep, and that you can guess someone’s socioeconomic status or experiences in life based on what they look like.

    Most insidious of all is the belief that slavery was a white institution instilled upon black people. Slavery was ubiquitous, and some of the most prolific slavers of the past 500 years were people of color. Native Americans enslaved prisoners. They routinely made women captives sex slaves. The Barbary Pirates enslaved more blacks than Europeans did, and they cruelly castrated most of the black men. The men they sold as eunuchs, after processing them through “gelding centers”. These pirates also preyed upon Europeans. During the Muslim expansion, European children were demanded as payment, a kind of tax, to feed through their barbarous slave trade. Some were turned into Janissaries through the Devshirme, or child blood tax, of the Ottoman Empire. Slaves with status, although at least they were able to keep their manhood.

    What would shock so many high school students, would be learning that Mauritania did not make slavery a crime until 2007. 2007, ladies and gentlemen, in an Islamic Republic in Northwest Africa.

    Slavery is still commonly practiced today in Africa and Asia. Actual slavery. Yet a slave owner from any number of African countries can emigrate to the US, and gain the protected status of a “person of color.” He will be assumed to be oppressed due to his color, even though he had 2 enslaved concubines and an enslaved man 2 weeks ago. Or a Maghreb can hold black slaves. Slavery is most common practiced in Eritrea and Burundi, East African nations.

    It was Western civilization, Enlightenment, and Christianity that abolished slavery, and developed the concept of individual rights, irrespective of class, wealth, or birth. While the United States was not the first Western nation to abolish slavery, it is the only nation of which I am aware which fought a civil war in order to free the slaves.

    What other nation bled so much blood to free slaves, in spite of the fact that only an infinitesimal percentage of its population owned any?

    What really boggles my mind is how Muslims enslaved and castrated so many black people, Christians organized abolitionist movements, the West abolished slavery, yet the Left criticizes Christianity as the religion of slavery, and the US as a nation based on slavery. If they flipped a coin, they would make better judgement calls.

    1. Let us not forget indentured servitude, which was pretty much white slavery. Tsk tsk. Pesky history, contradicting the left’s narrative like that!

      1. True, or the Helots of Sparta.

        Women indentured servants were an especially vulnerable class. A master could abuse or even kill his indentured servants, man or woman, for the most part with impunity. They could sell the remainder of their servitude to anyone they wished. They could sell, for example, a young woman servant, to literally any man who bought her, and she could have nothing to say about it. So many died from beatings, or they were debilitated or maimed. Many were duped into believing they’d get land at the end of their servitude, only to discover it was barren or swampland.

        Human history was not fair. The Past was not a safe place to live, any more than Nature is a safe, fair place for any wild animal.

        People seem to have absolutely no idea how lucky they are to live here in the West, in this time.

      2. Let’s also remember the kind of slavery that was 100 times more barbarous than chattel/plantation slavery: military conscription. In World War II, 61.2% of servicemen were draftees, and the deadly jobs were generally reserved for whites. Over 400,000 whites were killed in combat, while only 700 blacks were.

        1. “Over 400,000 whites were killed in combat, while only 700 blacks were.”

          Now tell us how many Americans died while enslaved and what their races were.

          “the kind of slavery that was 100 times more barbarous than chattel/plantation slavery: military conscription”

          Military conscription is not slavery. In WW2, as now, one could apply for conscientious objector status and carry out alternative service for pay.

          1. “Military conscription is not slavery. In WW2, as now, one could apply for conscientious objector status and carry out alternative service for pay.”

            Applying and being granted CO status are two different things. You aren’t very smart.

  5. Telling the complainants to “educate yourselves” is an admission that there is no defense for this discriminatory action and as a matter of raw power they think they can get away with it. And they may well be right on that, though in the long run you can win lots of battles and still lose the war.

    Reparations, paid by people who did no wrong, to people who suffered no harm at the hands of the payers. Yup, that sounds just like reparations

    1. Reparations, paid by people who did no wrong, to people who suffered no harm at the hands of the payers.

      Not just “no harm at the hands of the payers”, but no harm at all. Black Americans are the BENEFiCIARIES of chattel slavery in this country. They would not exist without it.

    1. Diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment), not limited to racism, sexism, ageism, and other class-based bigotry is a systemic condition in Progressive Churches, Synagogues, agencies, corporations, clinics, etc. #HateLovesAbortion

  6. Diversity [dogma], inequity, and exclusion.
    Surprise, political congruence (“=”) is a many Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, relativistic (“ethical”), nominally “secular” religious conception.

    1. Pro”Choice” is a deceptive, but very transparent, way of saying Pro”ABORTION.”

      1. No, that’s the deception. Pro-Choice is a nominally “secular” religion that advises behavioral protocols for its subscribers, of which elective abortion is the most visible progression. Ironically, reproductive rites a.k.a. planned parent/hood denies the dignity and agency of both women and men, approved by both feminists and masculinists. That said, everyone is pro-choice: abstention, prevention, adoption, or compassion, but stop short of the wicked solution, and other selective, opportunistic, relativistic (“ethical”) things. Privilege, indeed. Baby Lives Matter

  7. There won’t be a race war.

    Too many people of goodwill on both sides.

    And too many smart people (we only have to look at Africa or the Balkans to see the abyss) to allow the hotheads to make start a race war.

    What I am concerned about is defacto segregation.

    An example.

    Black students want segregated dorms. If they get them, then we have segregation and an excuse for whites to exclude blacks from activities and jobs (I know what the law says and we all know that compliance with the law requires a willingness thatmaynotexist).

    That is why I fear the consequences of these stupid actions going unchecked.

    1. “Black students want segregated dorms. If they get them . . .”

      Too late. Those collectivist/racist student residences already exist, e.g., at Wesleyan, Brown, UCLA, MIT, Oberlin, and countless other colleges.

      As do racist orientation programs at numerous colleges.

      As do racist graduation ceremonies, sometimes called a “Blackalaureate.”

      Academia has long-since gone full tribalism.

      1. And the kinds of “black” people who engage in these kinds of racial divisiveness are the ones who whine “racism” at the drop of a hat. They are the ones who see everything in color and consider themselves victims.

    2. I can see your point monumentcolorado.

      I think asking as there is an extremist within either group bent on maintaining the status quo there will always be an issue. However, I believe that mutual recognition that there is a problem and confronting it is one solution. How are the extremists on both sides dealt with when they are fighting to keep the status quo?

      1. Firstly Svelaz, you have to learn what an extremist is. People rioting in our cities, burning buildings, and destroying neighborhoods are extremists. That you could not recognize.

        Secondly, you are too dumb to recognize what the problem is and part of that problem is Stupidity, something you have an abundance of. For the most part the extreme left promoting CRT is extremist.

        SM

          1. Svelaz, you say that but all the prior postings prove you wrong. Your prior responses prove you not worthy of discussion, but your promotion of stupidity leaves the door open.

            SM

    3. There won’t be a race war.

      Too many people of goodwill on both sides.

      There are more than two sides.

  8. Gays/cross dressers and blacks are the problem.. always have been. White people know it deep down inside.

  9. Transgressive under a Rainbow banner of inclusive exclusion: black, brown, and, of course, white. One step forward, two steps backward.

    That said. think of the lions, lionesses, and their [unPlanned] cub playing in gay revelry.

  10. Lipson and LeFevre join a long list of people who have learned to shut-up, obey and pander.. or else. The lack of any backbone in these people is humiliating. The complete reversal of their positions, transparent pandering and begging for forgiveness.. in light of the fact none of these people actually believe a word they are saying when they apologies.. is disgusting. Drew Brees anyone?

  11. “. . . to charge people more based on their race.”

    To protest the injustice of affirmative action, university students have held “Affirmative Action Bake Sales” — whites pay $1.50 for a cupcake, blacks pay $.50, and so on.

    Predictably, Leftists howled that the bake sales are “inflammatory,” “divisive,” “insulting,” etc., etc.

    I guess if they called their events “Reparations Bake Sales,” all would be hunky-dory.

  12. I think this story is a fine way not to talk about the breaking news that trump wanted to send covid victims to Guatanamo in Feb. ’20, Turley. Good job.

    eb

    1. eb:

      Oh you almost had me going there until I looked up the affiliation of the authors who’ve demonstrated time and again they are paid Trump haters: ” Yasmeen Abutaleb and Damian Paletta, two Washington Post reporters.” Prejudice is a bad thing. Keep pitching those softballs.

      1. Nope, it’s true, Big Mess. Read and weep. Or more likely go back to wishing for a modern day leper colony.

        eb

          1. Very likely another witch hunt or warlock judgment (e.g. post-normal science, plausible in lieu of probable cause) that has become become modern jurisprudence favored by left of center entities, then progressed (i.e. monotonic), and liberalized (i.e. diverged) over more than 16 trimesters, which ironically caught the hunters and judges in traps of their own conception and birthing. He could have sent them to several Democrat districts that were known to religiously (e.g. “ethically”), legally, and socially embrace equity and inclusion in planned parent/hood schemes, but he didn’t.

          2. Anon:

            Big Splash-Real Investigation by Remnants of Real News-Back Page Retraction-Rinse and Repeat ‘Cause Readership Down. How many times can the dumb libs be fooled?

        1. The Vanityfair story dies when it mentions that the Author interviewed 180 people. Do you really think that 180 people would know what happened in a White House meeting. It’s a common pattern. A big number must prove the author’s veracity. Just like Trump and the 30,000 lies story. So that’s a big number! Trump was in office for 1,460 days. 30,000 divided by 1,460 equals 20.55 lies per day. He must have lied when he said he preferred his eggs over easy for breakfast. One MSM outlet starts the rumor and the others all fall in line. However, the populace are not falling for it, attested to by the falling ratings of the MSM. EB and the MSM don’t realize when thy are participating in a circular firing squad. They should keep doing it. We don’t want to stop them from shooting themselves in one foot and then the other.

          1. Thinkitthrough,

            “ The Vanityfair story dies when it mentions that the Author interviewed 180 people. Do you really think that 180 people would know what happened in a White House meeting.”

            As your name suggests, THINK IT THROUGH. Interviewing 180 people who all corroborate the same event and the fact that the Trump is well known for shooting his mouth off on crazy things gives the story some credence. Trump, the very same guy who suggested injecting cleaner to fight COVID.

            I’m pretty sure the story has credibility.

            1. “I’m pretty sure the story has credibility.”

              But you don’t have the basic intelligence to tell us what makes the story credible.

            2. Svelaz, so you interview 180 people who collaborate the story. If there weren’t 180 people in the room then it turns out to be a Sally told Jimmy and Jimmy told Sue and Sue told Sally story. It sounds just like a rumor spread in a high school lunchroom. Of course you believed those too. I think your old enough now to leave the lunchroom. Maybe.

              1. Many Rumors about Trump have turned out to be true. Plus there’s the corroboration of those who are staff members of senior officials in the room. When you interview many of those staff and all corroborate that rumor it is very likely that the story has credibility.

                1. How many people let us know that Russia Gate and clearing the park for a photo op was a fact based on reality. Assuming that because a lot of people said something means it is probably true does not make it true. A lot of people said the earth was flat. Svelaz, there’s a song with which you should make yourself familiar. Here’s the first line. You gotta know when to hold em and know when to fold em.

            3. Sevvy:

              “Trump, the very same guy who suggested injecting cleaner to fight COVID.”
              ***************************

              Well I suppose you’re an ESL kinda guy. He said:

              “I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute,” Trump said during Thursday’s coronavirus press briefing. “And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets inside the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that.”

              So asking a question about research now makes you a “suggester”? Such sophists.

              1. Mespo, he still suggested an idea that is essential lethal for anyone to try it. To inject disinfectant into your arm? Do you believe that is worthy advice coming from a president?

          2. The real questions you should ask TIT are why does trump flap his jaws as much as he does, and then after that, why are so many willing to talk about it? I mean other than the fact that probably the single least person capable to be in charge during a pandemic was in charge during the advent of a pandemic.

            eb

            1. A vaccine came into existence faster than any vaccine in history. The polio vaccine took ten years. Respirators made by General Motors. The respirators in the U.S. were never in short supply and some were eventually sent to Europe. Hospital ships sent to California and New York. If Trump was behind the curve the hospital ships should have been overflowing with Corona patients and there wouldn’t have been enough respirators. The ships went unused. Even writers on the left have reluctantly given Trump credit for operation warp speed. Nancy Pelosi puts your kibble on the dish and you gobble it down like she knows you will. Next comes your Trump vaccine which you hold up your paw to receive when you barked before that if it came from Trump you wouldn’t take it. Nancy says good boy EB, good boy. I detect the sound of panting.

            2. Bug, Thinkitthrough gave you a thorough answer. What do you have to say about the points he made?

    2. ElvisBug doesn’t know the difference between breaking news and breaking conjecture. Me thinks he strains his wee little eyes to find pablum for his preconceived baby notions. Of course we should not be surprised when his pattern has been exposed in the cases of Russia Gate and Kids in Cages. Sorry, I can’t leave out the clearing of the park for a photo op story that was entirely made up by the respectable press that EB relies on. EB’s ears perk up when he hears the sound of the “Sources say” whistle. To EB the retractions never make a sound.

      1. Nah. Being a fan of the morbid and absurd, my ears pick up when an American president suggests what amounts to a leper colony. They even have trump saying “…we own an island somewhere don’t we?”

        Actually, living on an island myself I’m happy he didn’t think of where I live. Then again, Manhattan is an island — probably explains his leaving NY hanging when things kicked off in Queens (his own burough!!)

        eb

    3. EB deflects from the subject article when he claims that the good Professor is somehow deflecting from EB’s new found subject of the day. Maybe he doesn’t know he’s doing it. Then again, he might be the kind of person who knows exactly what he is doing.

    4. Planned Prisoner? Wanted to, huh.

      Planned Parent/hood? Delivered, one of the few venues and practices with excess deaths on a year-over-year basis. 80% of cases were “healthy at any weight” and metabolically compromised individuals (e.g. George Floyd). Around 90% of the deaths can be attributed to stigmatization and denial of early, inexpensive, effective, low-risk therapeutic treatments that prevent [cellular] infection and mitigate disease progression.

    5. I was just thinking about that the other day. Prisoners at Guantanamo may have been one of the few individuals truly protected from the pandemic given their extreme isolation in their cells.

  13. So now black gay pride must be free but white gay pride comes with a price for admission. Some who are discriminated against are more equal than others who are discriminated against. It is sadly laughable. Orwell was laughing sadly.

  14. The current race war started by the wacko leftists and egged on by their comrades in the media IS going to turn into an actual all-out physical war with weaponry and death.. wait and see.

    1. There is no race war. There is certainly a problem with racism that has never been truly confronted.

      It’s the reluctance to confront certain realities about this country’s long history with racism that needs to be addressed. Too many are fearful they are going to be blamed for the actions of others in the past. It’s a fallacy that is being promoted by those who don’t want CRT to be discussed.

      1. Many will discuss CRT but recognizing your own ignorance you stay away from a discussion of what it is and what it means. You are ignorant to the numbers of people that lived and faced with discrimination along with the millions that died because of it.

        You have been given everything and you treat it like cr-p.

        SM

        1. SM,

          “ Many will discuss CRT but recognizing your own ignorance you stay away from a discussion of what it is and what it means.”

          BWHAHAHAHA!!!! ROFL!!!!

          🤣!!

          SM, you’re a riot. I HAVE been discussing it with you all this time. What HAS been the problem is you going off on subjects that have nothing to do with CRT because you have not read it at all.

          You have no idea what race I am or even if I have been subjected to discrimination at all. My last name should be a big clue for you. It’s part of my name on this blog.

          You can’t hold a discussion and stay on subject because the second it becomes difficult or out of your knowledge you go off an a different subject just to avoid going deeper into the discussion. I’m not the one who runs away here. Your constant tangents in a discussion effectively renders it into a rambling argument.

          You can believe you’re smart to your heart’s content, but that illusion is only being used as a crutch for your lack of it.

          If you’re really serious about having a discussion and you stay on the subject I would be more glad to have it. It’s ultimately YOUR choice.

          1. “BWHAHAHAHA”

            Svelaz, I see you are in the barnyard having your way with the sheep. That is fitting for a guy that lacks normal human intelligence.

            “You have no idea what race I am “

            I don’t care what race anyone is. You are a blot to whomever you associate with. I don’t care about your name. I care about the ignorant statements you make that lead to group hate and racism. You are a stupid person.

            SM

            1. SM, just as I thought. You’re just an idiot who hides behind the pretense of intellect. Have fun with that.

              1. No, Svelaz, I am a person of normal intelligence. You have no idea of what normal intelligence is for the usual person who talks about the things Turley writes.

                But along with a deficient intelligence you have an arrogance about what you know based almost exclusively on the talking points you are provided. To make is simple, so you can understand, you are Stupid.

                SM

                1. SM, if you have to explain to others that you have “normal” intelligence clearly you are not projecting that well enough for it to be obvious.

                  Every time you talk, you put doubt on that claim.

                  1. “SM, if you have to explain to others that you have “normal” intelligence”

                    Svelaz, others can have whatever opinion they want, but by all accounts you would have to be included in the stupid class.

                    SM

      2. Sevvy:

        “It’s the reluctance to confront certain realities about this country’s long history with racism that needs to be addressed.”
        ***********************
        State the “certain realities” and their cause demonstrating than any disparate impact you cite was caused in whole or in part by racial discrimination inflicted since the Civil Rights legislation of the 60s. (Saying “it’s obvious” doesn’t count.)

        Then in formulating the “addressing” part, you can discuss the fairness of visiting the sins of the father on the son and them move onto why someone whose ancestors were not even here during slavery or reconstruction have any responsibility to make amends for something neither they nor their ancestors did.

        Finally, discuss the effectiveness of the first wave of reparations known as the Great Society programs that were nothing more than pay for peace bribes that neither elevated nor improved the lot of many of its beneficiaries.

        1. Mespo, so which one of the topics you mention you want to focus on? Pick one and I’ll gladly discuss it with you. Bringing up all of them will just be a convoluted mess. One topic should suffice.

          1. Svelaz, a person of normal intelligence would be able to link all the related questions of Mespo together to provide a simple response that needn’t be long. You don’t have normal intelligence so you are unable.

            SM

            1. SM, no. Because it is easier and provides a better focus to discuss one aspect of the discussion in order to give context to the other subjects.

              Because focusing on one particular issue you can dive deep into its significance in a discussion.

              You proved you can’t do that because your rambling from subject to subject are poor attempts to project intellect that is simply not there.

              If mespo chooses to focus on one aspect of his response to my post is be more than happy to dive into a discussion.

              1. “Because focusing on one particular issue you can dive deep into its significance in a discussion.”

                This is just like your discussion of CRT a lot of nothing.Pure Stupidity and evasiveness.

                Go ahead and answer Mespo one by one. I admitted you didn’t have the intelligence to do all three related items together. You don’t have enough intelligence to make a good case one by one.

                SM

                1. Mespo hasn’t yet chosen which one of his three issues he wants to discuss. It was his choice.

                  1. As I thought Svelaz. You were two dumb to deal with all three at the same time, 1, 2, or 3, so you had your choice of which one to pick. You picked number 4.

                    What a jerk. LOL

      3. “It’s the reluctance to confront certain realities about this country’s long history with racism that needs to be addressed. “

        Over half a million Americans dead, Amendments to the Constitution, threats of military force against those using racism, the destruction of a viable KKK, Civil Rights laws and trillions of dollars spent this turkey thinks the nation never confronted ” certain realities about this country’s long history with racism”

  15. Many on this blog that come from the left keep screaming that they know what CRT means and the effects CRT has on the community. They are ignorant of the US Constitution and the effects of placing one race or ethnic group against another.

    They keep forgetting the holocausts that have occurred worldwide and by their actions promote such holocausts. In their zeal to show and promote their leftism, they forget the carnage in Rwanda, Armenia, Cambodia, The Holodomor, and The Holocaust. I haven’t mentioned the political tribalism of the 20th century, where the left was responsible for over 100 million deaths.

    All of those killings can be said to have been “done in the name of equity.” Our leftist experts who think they know all about CRT can’t recognize that equity replaces equality under the law. Equality under the law protects minorities.

    1. Sounds like S. Meyer is just about a 9 iron from full on commitment at a finer mental health establishment.

      1. Anonymous the Stupid, we all note that you have absolutely nothing to say. Maybe you ought to reread what I said and try to get past the name.

        Many on this blog that come from the left keep screaming that they know what CRT means and the effects CRT has on the community. They are ignorant of the US Constitution and the effects of placing one race or ethnic group against another.

        They keep forgetting the holocausts that have occurred worldwide and by their actions promote such holocausts. In their zeal to show and promote their leftism, they forget the carnage in Rwanda, Armenia, Cambodia, The Holodomor, and The Holocaust. I haven’t mentioned the political tribalism of the 20th century, where the left was responsible for over 100 million deaths.

        All of those killings can be said to have been “done in the name of equity.” Our leftist experts who think they know all about CRT can’t recognize that equity replaces equality under the law. Equality under the law protects minorities.

              1. That doesn’t change my answer.

                (“Anonymous the Stupid, you said nothing which is typical for you.”)

    2. S. Meyer, you keep saying things you think you understand and yet you prove to everyone just how much you don’t.

      “ They keep forgetting the holocausts that have occurred worldwide and by their actions promote such holocausts. In their zeal to show and promote their leftism, they forget the carnage in Rwanda, Armenia, Cambodia, The Holodomor, and The Holocaust.”

      You’re defining all these events as Holocausts when it has nothing to do with CRT. You can’t even properly define what a Holocaust is.

      You’re just making stuff up to compensate for you not really reading what CRT’s many papers say. You’re only focusing on the few quotes or phrases without any of the context that comes with them in order to come up with your crazy assumptions.

      “ Our leftist experts who think they know all about CRT can’t recognize that equity replaces equality under the law.”

      SM, that’s it always the case. The us did is much more complicated than you make it out to be.

      When there is inequality that is obvious to those who are directly affected by it, “Equality under the law” as you put it is not being enforced. It’s always been undermined whenever equality is emphasized. Look at the religious right, they OPPOSED equality in marriage when the LGBTQ community sought the right to same sex marriage. They sought equity with those who already enjoyed the right.

      Same thing with blacks. The law guaranteed equal treatment under the law, but many conservatives didn’t want that and opposed their right to vote, to seek an education, to marry outside their race, etc. They sought equity and many conservatives and right leaning individuals opposed that. Simply because of who they were.

      Women sought equity too. The right to vote required a constitutional amendment and it culminated in the 19th amendment to the constitution.

      Many good things were done in the name of equity. And CRT points out continued inequality that is part of our country’s founding and its present iterations.

      1. “You’re defining all these events as Holocausts when it has nothing to do with CRT. ”

        Svelaz, you wish to act stupid continually. You are free to do so.

        “You continue to talk in generalities while saying nothing. That is proof of your idiocy. “Equality under the law” as you put it is not being enforced.”

        Aside from the tens of millions of deaths, how did your idea of equity work out?

        The evangelist right functioned under the rule of law, something you know little about.

        “The law guaranteed equal treatment under the law, but many conservatives didn’t want that”

        The left (and Democrats) are the supporters of slavery all over the world. They are responsible for over 100 million deaths. Your stupidity is no excuse for what you say.

        “Many good things were done in the name of equity. ”

        Yes, Mussolini made the trains run on time, and Hitler restored Germany’s pride.

        According to Svelaz the riots across the nation were peaceful despite the deaths, the burning of cities, the destruction of cities and livelihoods. You function on the level of an animal that doesn’t have the human capacity to think.

        SM

      2. The “religious” right approved marriage to normalize the productive union of a man and a woman, not specifically exclusion of couplets, polygamists, etc. The right supported unions for all people. The left opposed. The religious left approved marriage with terms of selective exclusion (“=”) for couples and couplets.

        American conservatives stood against slavery and diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment) that was upheld by left-wing ideologues, not limited to Some, Select [Color] Lives Matter, KKK, and like-minded religious groups.

        Women have always had the right to vote. The Amendment regularized this civil right across America. The Constitution does not exercise liberal license to indulge diversity [dogma].

        Critical Racists’ Theory presumes diversity [dogma], inequity, and exclusion, not limited to racism, sexism, ageism, a Pro-Choice religious philosophy, based on handmade tales.

        That said, the religious left sincerely believe that they can abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too. Perhaps ironically, but with historic precedents, the Pro-Choice religion’s provision for reproductive rites denies the dignity and agency of both women and men, and the life of the child for social progress and other light and casual causes, and social justice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

        1. N.n.,

          “ Women have always had the right to vote. ”

          No they didn’t. Women were not allowed to vote until 1920 when the 19th amendment was ratified.

          1. Svelaz, you need an education. The Constitution doesn’t determine whether or not women had the right to vote. That was up to the Constitution of the State.

            The New Jersey constitution permitted women to vote day one. NJ changed the NJ Constitution to deny woman a right to vote quite awhile later.

            SM

  16. Wonder what the response would be if someone obtained a TRO to stop the parade on the basis of racial discrimination?

  17. There is a fine irony to Turley’s column. It seems to show how discrimination has been seen by those who have been on the receiving eve of it for centuries. To suddenly be subjected to an overly discriminatory policy and object to its implied intent is exactly what passes for the status quo for those who don’t see it due to never being on the receiving end of racism.

    1. Svelaz, apparently you have never been directly on the receiving end of racism or education. Some of us have. Some of us are missing most of their families so when you try to make your stupid comments you should recognize that fact.

      The problem is you act like an idiot, are an idiot and there is no cure.

    2. Your point is well taken. However there is a part that needs to be examined. It is fine to argue that those that have not faced this discrimination do not understand those points of view that have faced this discrimination. But, for those that have faced this discrimination to discriminate themselves over the very same circumstances undermines their very point. Of all, they should be the most sensitive and accommodating since they have gone through it. I certainly understand what they are trying to accomplish, but they open themselves up to a great criticism of “you are doing the very same thing you complained about”. Intentional or not, it appears to be hypocritical.

      1. The Quiet Man, I completely agree. It seems more of a poor attempt at making a point. However there will always be those who may never understand. At least the controversy is forcing a discussion on it despite the poor enabling if the issue.

      2. ” I certainly understand what they are trying to accomplish, “

        Suffice it to say that most of the leaders promoting this BS are not promoting equity, rather they are promoting a destructive ideology or being used to promote that ideology.

      3. Quite man, hypocritical is not the correct word. The word you should have used is immoral. Discrimination against blacks is immoral and discrimination against whites is immoral. Replacing one immoral act with another act of immorality occurs when no law exists. He shot my great gran daddy so Ima gonna shoot his great gran daddy. Right out of the Hatfields and McCoys. The question that must arise is when will it end?

        1. I agree on the immoral point, but disagree on the hypocritical point. It is certainly immoral, as a society we have come to that conclusion. The hypocritical point is valid due to the nature of the issue. I am holding you to a standard that I myself will not meet. I am complaining about you with me doing the very same behavior. That is the very definition of hypocritical.

          Ultimately, it hurts the very cause because it undermines moral authority due the bad behavior being the very same. You scream about discrimination and yet you proceed to engage in the very discrimination you complain about.

      4. The Quiet Man:

        Larry Elder often talks about a poll that was done on black high school students. If I recall correctly, students said that racism was a major problem, yet they experienced very little of it directly, in their own lives. When asked which was a bigger problem, racism or failure to take advantage of opportunities, most said the latter.

        Most of the cyclical problems in poor black communities may be laid at the door of the astronomically high rate of single motherhood. Even Obama said years ago that fatherless homes were a scourge on the black community. A child of a single mother is statistically more likely to live in a poor, dangerous neighborhood, do poorly in school, do drugs, drop out of school or graduate with poor reading and math skills, join a gain, commit crimes, go to jail, or be murdered. The poor black communities have very high rates of single motherhood. Some cities have over 80% single parent households. Therefore the ensuring crime and poverty and drug use are predictable.

        There are no white people urging black women to become single mothers, or black fathers to deposit children with various mothers they abandon. High crime means high incarceration rate. It is true, however, that the welfare system penalizes women who live in the same house as the father of their children. The Left created a false promise that government could replace a father. It accidentally created a financial incentive for single motherhood.

        The government makes a poor substitute for a father, and no one thrives on Welfare. It’s a trap that’s hard to get out of.

        Most children born in such a situation become adults who speak poorly, read poorly, consider punctuality, a nuclear family, and hard work to be “acting white”, and may have a criminal record already. They are non competitive in the jobs market. Instead of blaming the generational cyclical choices that put them in that situation, they blame systemic racism and white people.

        One of the worst travesties is BLM itself. An organization that purports to care about black lives, agitates to reduce or remove police presence from high crime neighborhoods. It pushes to excuse violent riots, and looting, which decimate those communities for decades, driving employers away and drying up opportunities for those trapped inside. It refuses to use its activist to promote behaviors statistically proven to lead to a middle class life – staying out of trouble, don’t do drugs, graduate high school, get a job, wait to have kids until you get married, take care of all of your kids and be a part of their lives. Ludicrously, BLM claims that all of those behaviors, including having a nuclear family, are symptoms of “whiteness” or the patriarchy.

        The Democrat Party tends to oppose school choice, trapping parents in failing public school systems.

        It is quite clear that it’s the Left that is oppressing black people, and that the best chance black communities have for success is to change from within. They sure aren’t going to listen to white outsiders explaining how the same steps for middle class lifestyle work for every race, and in fact Asians excel the most at it.

        Why do parents tell their kids, generation after generation, to do well in school, stay out of trouble, and wait to have kids until marriage? Because it works.

    3. The people of black African slavers selling men, women, and children at below human prices (e.g. arbitrage) forever changed the global market for slaves, adding a premium to white slaves.

      That said, diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment), not limited to racism, sexism, ageism, denies individual dignity (e.g. Jew privilege), individual conscience (e.g. white privilege), intrinsic value (e.g. selective-child), normalizes color blocks (e.g. the racist designation “people of color”), color quotas, and affirmative discrimination.

    4. Svelaz –

      Are you condoning discriminating against innocent people, based on race, because entirely different people, of a different era, discriminated against different people?

      Is it OK to discriminate against:
      -the descendants of those who ran the Underground Railroad, at great personal peril?
      -the descendants of Union soldiers?
      -the descendants of the Holocaust or the Holodomor?
      -the descendants of the Irish Potato Famine?
      -the descendants of those Europeans enslaved by Barbary Pirates?
      -the descendants of anyone forced into war, indentured servitude, concubinage, prostitution, pressed into the Navy, land taken as droits, or those who starved in the hedgerows, having never persecuted anyone ever? The Past was pretty grim for most people.
      -the descendants of galley slaves?

      How do you pick and choose among people whom to punish for the sins of those long dead? Do you pick blood descendants?

      What do you do about black people who descended from the tribes who captured and sold their enemies to slave traders, either European or Muslim, and then emigrated here after slavery was abolished? What about black people who participated in the terrible tribal wars and ensuring atrocities in Africa, who emigrated here in modern times? What about black modern day slave owners, or those who come from countries like Eritrea with massive slave populations still?

      Who owes whom recompense, and should it in any way be based upon ones own actions, or just their skin color?

      1. Karen,

        “ Svelaz –

        Are you condoning discriminating against innocent people, based on race, because entirely different people, of a different era, discriminated against different people?”

        No I don’t condone that at all. But that’s not what CRT is about. That’s the false narrative that is being pushed by critics of CRT. CRT is not about seeking punishment

        IT doesn’t lay punishment or blame on others simply because they are descendants. It’s about acknowledging the roots of the problem. The criticism is focused on avoiding the acknowledgment of a continuing problem.

        The idea of reparations is controversial and I’m not even sure if it is a practical solution today.

        CRT is not about reversing the tables on others abs discriminate against white people. That’s purely a false narrative concocted by critics of CRT.

  18. Lefties really are stupid.

    If their racist policies are allowed, then there will be an upsurge in racism, racial division, and anger.

    The Lefties don’t want racial harmony; they want an angry electorate clamoring for preference.

    Lefties need to be treated with the contempt that they have earned.

    1. Monumentcolorado. You’re reading too much into what these groups are trying to do. I think it’s way too silly in the first place given how many labels they came up with. Many of which I haven’t heard before.

      On its face it seems like a stupid exercise I trying to make a point, but the notion isn’t too far off from what has happened officially in our own history.

      1. Now Monumentcolorado you have an answer to an earlier question based on the Svelaz response and the earliest post of mine on this thread. My former answer was my wandering around in my mind and wondering why you asked the question.

Leave a Reply