I'm white, so I'm angrier at the former. Mind you, I'm angry about the latter too, but the former takes precedence because I don't want to end up in an anti-white apartheid.
Five minutes of hate news
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
Oxfam training guide blames ‘privileged white women’ over root causes of sexual violence
Plus: Feminist writer Julie Bindel ponders 'if a war is being declared against feminism'
www.telegraph.co.uk
Oxfam staff training document blames 'privileged white women'
The high-profile British charity, which has been hit by a slew of sex scandals, compiled the document through its LGBT network.
Oxfam training guide blames ‘privileged white women’ over root causes of sexual violence
Plus: Feminist writer Julie Bindel ponders 'if a war is being declared against feminism'
Oxfam staff training document blames 'privileged white women'
The high-profile British charity, which has been hit by a slew of sex scandals, compiled the document through its LGBT network.www.dailymail.co.uk
This is infuriating, tiring, and darkly humorous at the same time. And I think you can all see why, though I can explain why reasoning for each reaction if it isn't as obvious as I thought.
Though ironically some of the language used I am actually sympathetic with, if they weren't flagrantly racist, obviously guilty of wrong-doing and so on. I mean I am sympathetic in the light of weaponized claims such as JD, Jian Ghomeshi, Kavanaugh, a whole scad of other republicans, that college sports team (rugby I believe), that guy targeted by Mattress Bitch, and all those countless examples. Which I think actually makes it worse, since they are to an extent co-opting a real problem to advance their agenda.
These fucking morons writing this shit ("company manifestos"/dossiers/"training manuals"/et cetera) don't understand that accusing White people all the time like this, treating us like second-class citizens because we're White, and viewing men as scum because we have dongs? It's starting to cause an uptick in racism and sexism -- from Whites against (predominately) Blacks and against women! (Though, the latter also includes the biases for women socially and legally these days, but that goes into MGTOW and a whole load of other kettles of fish).
Do they really not understand they're causing the issues they're screeching about like lobotomized chimpanzees?
Do they really not understand they're causing the issues they're screeching about like lobotomized chimpanzees?
Simonbob
Well-known member
As long as they gain power from it, no, they don't. They're in echo chambers, after all.
They do, and they want it because it would justify cracking down even harder on whites.
Julie Bindel is one of the 'leftover' second wave radical feminists who spends her days screaming that everything is a "war on feminism". She's especially vitriolic about hating actual lesbians for not being political lesbians, younger women as a whole for not being second wave feminists, and trans women for existing at all.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Thing is, they do understand it. And they see it as a good thing. Because, thing is, they don't really care about racism and sexism. In fact, they themselves are racist (against Whites) and sexist (against men). And by accusing White people and males (and especially White males) and treating them as second-class citizens, they promote radicalization - actual racism and sexism. And to them, that is good, because it allows them to point to racism and sexism, and then use actual racism and sexism as a smokescreen to hide the fact that a) they are also attacking things that are not actually racist and sexist by widening definitions of both and b) that they themselves are racist and sexist - just in the direction opposite of the one they are screeching about.
The only way out is to stop caring whether something is racist, sexist, or can be construed as such, and only care about whether something is true or not.
The Minnesota Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, Geoscience, and Interior Design (AELSLAGID) which is basically a licensing board for Engineers, issued a $1500 fine towards one of its members for identifying himself as an engineer in speeches and articles during a period of time he temporarily failed to renew said license.
How it started:
So it starts with a triggered out of state engineer issuing a complaint in bad faith. But what excuse does Mr. Charles Marohn have for this oversight?
Seems reasonable... but it wasn't and the board issued him a $1500 dollar fine and told him he would have to sign a legal document stated he willfully misrepresented himself as a licensed engineer. Shockingly, he declined and thus it went to a (virtual) hearing in March which led to what apparently is quite obvious, the issue is with Marohn's politics, not his licensing.
Marohn offered to pay a $500 fine and a "stipulated" order that he had identified himself as an engineer while his license had lapsed but would not admit to being "untruthful" or making "false" statements. However the AELSLAGID refused his settlement so now Marohn brought a lawsuit against them in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota with a legal team from the Institute of Justice.
Minnesota Threatens To Fine This Engineer for Calling Himself an Engineer
The head of an urban policy nonprofit is suing Minnesota's engineering licensing board after they threatened him with fines and…reason.com
Apparently a slightly similar case is happening in North Carolina with an individual who isn't licensed but was (and still is) a chemical engineer for almost give decades.
This is an entirely normal thing in licensed professions, though. You're not allowed to refer to yourself professionally as being X, unless you are an actively licensed X, regardless of your education and knowledge. It's why an immigrant with a medical degree from overseas can't advertise himself as a doctor or perform medical services until he's licensed in the United States, and it's exactly the same for engineers and architects and other licensed professions.
Hell, this is the entire reason the term "paralegal" exists, because it's completely normal for people with actual law degrees to work in a legal office in a subordinate staff capacity until they actually pass the bar exam. The term was coined as a way of distinguishing between staffers who have substantial legal knowledge (but still need a licensed attorney to sign off on things), versus those who are legal secretaries without that knowledge.
Edit: As to the specific case at hand, where someone *is* a licensed X, but has let their license lapse while still working. . . that's a corner case, but it's fundamentally his own stupid fault for failing to renew his licensure. Him raising a stink about it like this? That's literally him refusing to take responsibility and accept consequences for his own actions and choices, which is not something I feel people should have much sympathy for.
Let me put it this way: I don't think anyone would be sympathetic to a working-class security guard who got in trouble because he forgot to renew his security license. That is literally the exact same situation as this; I feel like the only reason he's getting any traction at all is he's trying to flip the narrative and basically imply that government licensure is unreasonable. Except that kind of licensure is the only way people have any reliable way to differentiate between bona fide medicine as in doctors, and quack medicine as in chiropractors and "naturopaths".
Hell, this is the entire reason the term "paralegal" exists, because it's completely normal for people with actual law degrees to work in a legal office in a subordinate staff capacity until they actually pass the bar exam. The term was coined as a way of distinguishing between staffers who have substantial legal knowledge (but still need a licensed attorney to sign off on things), versus those who are legal secretaries without that knowledge.
Edit: As to the specific case at hand, where someone *is* a licensed X, but has let their license lapse while still working. . . that's a corner case, but it's fundamentally his own stupid fault for failing to renew his licensure. Him raising a stink about it like this? That's literally him refusing to take responsibility and accept consequences for his own actions and choices, which is not something I feel people should have much sympathy for.
Let me put it this way: I don't think anyone would be sympathetic to a working-class security guard who got in trouble because he forgot to renew his security license. That is literally the exact same situation as this; I feel like the only reason he's getting any traction at all is he's trying to flip the narrative and basically imply that government licensure is unreasonable. Except that kind of licensure is the only way people have any reliable way to differentiate between bona fide medicine as in doctors, and quack medicine as in chiropractors and "naturopaths".
Last edited:
I actually don't think I would care if a working-class security guard was talking about security instead of actually practicing it without a license which lapsed due to lack of renewal. Unless he has dementia or something. I mean if he's been practicing working-class security guard work for over four decades and then offered advice based on that experience and can readily be identified as such, as it is in the above case, not a big deal.
In the above case the person wasn't involved in conjuring up chemicals or applying them to whatever or whatever the heck chemical engineers do. He was talking about floodwater going through pipes in pro bono work. I'm sure since its a legal case that it can be referenced and verified if he's a quack or not, as that's a pretty big part of the legal profession when dealing with 'expert witnesses' or whatever. Literally no harm was done... he's not protecting a VIP, prosecuting a pedophile or proscribing medicines to your Grandma.
No, it is a completely different situation. Going with your analogy, it would be exactly the same if a security guard got in trouble because after a long career as a security guard, he stopped working as a security guard, let all his licenses expire, and in the meantime wrote a book titled "Memoirs of a Security Guard" in which he wrote about his experience as a security guard and thrown in a lot of the commentary about the profession and related fields, and then got sued for falsely claiming to be a security guard.
Even if in some of such cases the licensing boards can manage to legally hit such instances, it should be limited, by common sense, or failing that, hard caveats written into the law, to significant matters of professional expertise or blatant cases of abuse, not nitpicking like this.
That's not against the rules at all. The rule is against doing *professional work* as a licensed professional while not licensed; pro bono work is not exempted from this, because it's still professional work.
Was that a kind of work of a form that required said professional license, or was that work just making a speech relating to his professional experience?
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
He didn't do professional work though? He said he was an engineer during a speech, that wasn't professional engineering work.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
San Fran Legalized Shoplifting. Now Seniors Have No Pharmacies | FrontpageMag
Actions have consequences. Pro-crime policies work. And electing leftists who call themselves progressives and promise to protect criminals from being
After San Francisco Reduced Penalties For Shoplifting, Walgreens Closed 17 Stores Because Of Rampant Theft | NewsRadio 740 KTRH | Michael Berry
After San Francisco Reduced Penalties For Shoplifting, Walgreens Closed 17 Stores Because Of Rampant Theft
Stores in San Francisco are apparently closing right left and middle due to shoplifting. Between California's already lax laws, SanFran's tremendous levels of taxes and fees for everything to pay for their massively subsidized social programs, and ludicrous levels of shoplifting the stores just can't stay open.
California's laws are bad enough as Prop 47 dramatically reduced penalties for Shoplifting. But in SanFran it's even more lax, and the claims are that thieves simply walk in, load up on stuff, and walk out because the store employees aren't allowed to make any effort whatsoever to stop them and the police simply don't bother to show up when called.
Given that videos like these are extremely easy to find and abundant on YouTube the claims have some pretty good backing.
Snopes has debunked this on the grounds that the police said it's not official policy to never bother showing up, and the penalties for shoplifting as a misdemeanor still exist so the possibility of a small fine will still deter thieves.
Was a Bold Drugstore Shoplifting Incident in SF Due to 'No Arrest' Policy?
Video of a brazen crime in the Bay Area wasn't what some people on social media claimed it to be.
www.snopes.com
To be fair and honest, the rules about professional work get really complicated, really fast, and do vary from field to field as well. So while I'm familiar with the principles involved from my history as an EMT and my dad's history as an architect, I don't know the exact specifics for engineers. So I'm probably guilty of overstating my position somewhat. However, the principles are as I've described, and I'm arguing that the principles are entirely reasonable and sensible.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Meanwhile everyone else is pointing out that those principles are irrelevant to the situation at hand.
