So there's a national debate championship called CEDA where the judges seem to have predetermined to award the top prize to a team of black women so the judges could gloat afterward about how progressive they are. The plan had a bit of a snag when the finalists failed to discuss the debate topic and went into racist tirades against white people using the sort of rhetoric that the Germans used against the Jews and that would earn a team of any other skin color a quick expulsion from their university if they had used these same themes against black people. However, that was easily ignored in the name of progress. A few people noticed that the standards of collegiate debating were not being upheld, so CEDA issued a press release condemning them all as racists.
So according to CEDA, we have these new rules:
- If you think a debater should stay on the topic of the debate, you are a racist.
- If you think debaters should follow the stated rules of the debate, you are a racist.
- If you think a debate should be judged on the quality of the debate, you are a racist.
- If you would hold black people to the same standards as other people, you are a racist for treating blacks and non-blacks equally.
And we have these corollary rules for any students participating in a CEDA debate:
- If you address the topic of the debate, you will lose.
- If you respect the stated rules of the debate, you will lose.
- If you were born to the wrong kind of parents, you will lose.
And anyone who has a problem with any of this is probably afraid to speak out because someone might call them a racist. After all, this is the sort of event that attracts white supremacists to come out of their caves and start saying stupid things about black people, and it is usual in these situations for the official Progressives™ to point at them and point at their critics and say "all of you people are like that".
Side note: Apparently a few of the participating universities got wind that this was not going to be an academic exercise, so they started to organize their own competing debate event. They gave up and fell back in the fold when people called them white universities and accused them of practicing racial segregation.
An additional note that is really a core issue: The students are being deprived of a good education by being told that their shit is gold. They are receiving positive reinforcement for anti-intellectual activities and may not be getting that sort of reinforcement for logic, analytical, and reasoning skills, if they are being exposed to critical thinking at all. They're getting a hell of a lesson in politics, though.
fired deleted a post by writer Danielle Lee for complaining when Ofek, a representative of its business partner Biology Online, called her a whore for politely declining an offer to work for them for free. As the blogger DrRubidium notes, Scientific American has not fired censored its white writers for writing in support of Lee, who is black. Here are Lee's own words on the situation.
EDIT: On rereading, the sources do not say that Lee was fired, only that they deleted one of her posts.
The Revolutionary Communist Party (note the sign), the Workers World Party (note the signs), the Occupy movement, and the Muslim Brotherhood are mobilizing in support of Trayvon Martin's right to beat up any untermensch he feels like attacking because he is of a superior race.
(For anyone who missed the trial, we learned from the prosecution's witnesses that Martin confronted Zimmerman, Martin started the fight, Martin was the one beating Zimmerman while Zimmerman was calling for help, Martin had racist motivations, Zimmerman did not, Zimmerman was telling the truth this whole time, and everything you've heard from the press against Zimmerman was wrong. The defense only had to show up.)
Beware of disinformation. All of these groups lie their lips off as a standard tactic and justify it as a way to hasten the revolution, and all four are competent at getting their propaganda into the mainstream culture.
Why is the MB involved? My guess is political strategy, making inroads into other groups. Next guess is someone is paying them.
One thing that's interesting is that these groups have international networks and also tend to take curious positions on international issues that would coincide with what fronts for hostile foreign intelligence agencies would be expected to say. It's curious. I'd love to have a look at their financial records.
Imagine if there were a political party that stood for social justice, economic justice, human rights, and grassroots organization; that demanded we uphold the Constitution in its entirety and restore the checks and balances between the three branches of government; that opposed the expansions of police powers leading to a federal police state that have been supported by both the Democratic and Republican parties; and that was racist as hell.