The Carleton University Students’ Association has voted to drop cystic fibrosis as the beneficiary of its annual Shinearama fundraiser, arguing that the illness is not “inclusive” enough.
Good grief… what is wrong with these people?
The expression “concentrated idiocy” with respect to our so-called “institutions of higher learning” is not only apropos, but highly memorable, to say the least.
Update: Nice move “liberals”… You’ve just made us the target of scorn and ridicule by the Right. Kudos for massive stupidity!
133 Comments
November 25, 2008 at 4:01 pm
RT,
Not that it would at all mitigate the massive idiocy of judging the worthiness of a disease based on its “inclusiveness”, but its clear that the VAST majority of the sufferers in this video were female. Obviously, so were the composers, so this might have had an effect on who they knew, but clearly the premise supposedly justifying this inanity (that it almost only affects white males) isn’t even terribly accurate in itself. Which of course isn’t surprising.
November 25, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I selected this video quite advisedly with that in mind.
November 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Oh you’re clever!
November 25, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I’ve been called worse.
November 25, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Never mind the ignorance about CF. If CUSA wants to give its funds to a charity (say cancer research) whose beneficiaries are universal, why the hell is this wrong?
I wish some of the perpetually morally outraged would grab a clue. Obviously CF is not solely a disease of white males. But CUSA wasn’t concerned that white males would get help–they were concerned because they thought (mistakenly) that white males exclusively would get help. If their facts happened to be right, that would be a perfectly reasonable factor to weigh when deciding which charity should receive their dollars.
I’m off to Olaf’s now to give him a piece of my mind. I find it passing strange that conservatives are suddenly so opposed to free choice.
November 25, 2008 at 4:56 pm
It is dumb to stop a fundraiser, especially for that reason, but going from the comments of the Carleton University Students Association President politics were at play with the comment about the disease hurting white males.
“CUSA president Brittany Smyth said the idea of changing next year’s orientation fundraiser to focus on a different charity, perhaps a local cause, first came up about a year ago.
“She said that the part of the motion that refers to why Shinerama has been cancelled is irrelevant, not part of the official meeting record and simply reflects the rationale of the councillor who raised the motion.
“It completely depends on the individual,” Smyth told CTV.ca. “It’s 100 per cent their opinion. Their opinion doesn’t have to be fact or anything really. It’s just how this individual felt.”
“Only the resolution is important, Smyth said, even though it appears councillors are endorsing the idea that support of cystic fibrosis be stopped because it is a white-man’s disease.
“Speaking from the council perspective, the whereas motions weren’t actually overly relevant when people were making a decision on what they wanted to do,” Smyth said.
“She also pointed out that the whereas clauses cannot be amended, and said if a resolution to drop Shinerama had been rejected, the issue could not have been raised again. “
If real politicians were playing this game, they would have backed away from it when the “whereas” section was added even if was an issue that they wanted to pass. Why? Because even if you manage to win the battle (get the point through), you lose the war (you look like an idiot to the rest of the world).
(Of course, this depends on whether Smyth is telling the truth.)
November 25, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I’m not sure the argument is really that compelling, although I can at least understand their premises (“favouring one particular – and particularly – narrow group for charity is not ideal”, “it may be possible to help a charity that is a little more inclusive”, etc.) which is more than I can say for some of the people complaining about this action on the BT blogroll.
Also, I don’t really care where the money goes, and I agree with Dawg that they should be free to decide on their own the receiving charity, no matter whether their reasons seem strange.
Who knows if that’s the real reason that they decided to switch. As long as the money is going to a real charity, I’m not concerned. Some of the BTs are making it out to be impossible to select a charity that is inclusive – even if only a bit more inclusive – and that’s ridiculous. One of them is suggesting a boycott of Carleton for this – great idea, bonehead, because that’s REALLY going to get more money to those charities that you claim to give a sh*t about.
November 25, 2008 at 5:09 pm
No to donating to breast cancer research. It affects mostly women. How selfish of me.
November 25, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Back in the day, when I used to work in a more conventional business environment, we just gave to the United Way… a broad-based form of giving back to the community. Although the owner of the company opposed this because he was an ardent Catholic and objected to the fact that the United Way contributed funds to sex-ed and contraception programs… Whatever. We ignored him for the most part… shaved off 5% of our budget to give to the Catholic Church out of deference and then gave the rest to the United Way.
I think the Carelton SU needs to re-think its policy in this regard. Perhaps just putting whatever funds raised over to a responsible third-party like the United Way might be a better option. Low maintenance and relatively uncontroversial.
November 25, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Dawg — You’re defending these bozos on the grounds that had their facts been in order their decision would conceivably have been reasonable?
But in actuality… their facts were WRONG. And therefore, the conclusions they arrived at were boneheaded.
You seem to be defending their good intentions, but completely overlooking their… what’s the word of it? Oh yes, STUPIDITY.
November 25, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Took the words out of my mouth. That’s where most of my charitable donations have gone in the past.
I wish they’d just gone ahead and done it, without inviting these philosophical discussions.
Sorry for my tone earlier–I was fresh from Daimnation, where I ran into a few chainsaws.
November 25, 2008 at 5:29 pm
RT:
We crossed paths. No, there is no excuse for getting the basic facts wrong. Google is their friend.
sharonapple88 raises some interesting facts in that respect, though. (“88?” Wow.)
November 25, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Dawg — No problem.
Daimnation Urgh. [Shudder…]
Not quite as bad as DMB or SDA, but still quite objectionable.
November 25, 2008 at 5:52 pm
sharonapple88 raises some interesting facts in that respect, though. (”88?” Wow.)
The 88 is for luck.
I don’t know if I believe in it, but as the story goes about Bohr’s horseshoe…
“…I am told that a horseshoe will bring you good luck whether you believe in it or not! How can one argue with such logic?”
November 25, 2008 at 5:58 pm
In numerology, “88″ is representative of: “Spiritual atomic energy in balance, thought power with discrimination and responsibility, truth with honest simplicity, initiation, Master Disciple, impeccable discipline, mastery of self control, transmutation of emotional and physical temptation.”
Cool.
November 25, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Nice move “liberals”… You’ve just made us the target of scorn and ridicule by the Right.
Because of Shinearama ‘08 and Cartoon U?
November 25, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Okay, I didn’t know that.
And remember folks — stay away from the number four.
(No, I’m not superstitious at all.
)
November 25, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Unrelated to the overall topic at hand, but since it got brought up….
Informative post about Chinese numbers superstition.
November 25, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Ti-Guy — In this particular instance, yes. Ruling out a disease for not being adequately “inclusive”… CLASSIC! You can bet that will recur periodically as an example of “liberal” idiocy gone amok.
November 25, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Catelli — Thanks for that. What a fascinating article. And quite coincidentally, I was in the process of making a post related to language. Funny how things just come together sometimes.
November 25, 2008 at 6:39 pm
You can bet that will recur periodically as an example of “liberal” idiocy gone amok.
Well, as long as they’re not calling us pedophiles, I’m happy.
November 25, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Oh wonderful. Now the left whingers are working themselves into a state of high dudgeon over meaningless events.
November 25, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Robert — I think you’re missing the point. Yes, I suppose it could be regarded as “meaningless” but it’s indicative of a certain attitude that does nothing but reinforce stereotypes about clueless “liberals” that have their collective heads so far up their backside they can’t even be bothered to get the facts straight before parading their muddle-headed ignorance for all the world to see.
Excuse me, but I was operating under the notion that we were part of the “reality-based community” and this bunch of ignorant clowns at Carleton haven’t exactly helped further the cause in a positive way with their ridiculous decision to de-fund a charity because it wasn’t deemed to be sufficiently “inclusive” for their liking.
November 25, 2008 at 7:27 pm
RT,
You can bet that will recur periodically as an example of “liberal” idiocy gone amok.
Just another arrow in my quiver.
November 25, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Carleton U students have been fundraising for this charity for 15 years. They want to give the money to some other charity. What the CF should have done is THANK them for 15 years of a complete monopoly on the funds raised, not chide them!
Let Carleton U chose another worthy charity. Maybe CF should be reminded they aren’t the only worthy charity in Canada.
November 25, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Just another arrow in my quiver.
I can just see it now:
Me: I really think we should proceed judiciously when considering policies that might encourage excessive for-profit activity in the delivery of health care in the public system.
Con: Loony liberal! You just want to kill white males. Just like Shinearama ‘08 at Carleton U!
November 25, 2008 at 7:38 pm
but it’s indicative of a certain attitude that does nothing but reinforce stereotypes about clueless “liberals”
So is everything else according to the right whingers and it has become nothing more than background noise.
November 25, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Speaking of white males vs. loony liberals, ¿quién es más loco?:
In that vast madhouse echoing with anguished howling that is the blogosphere, it doesn’t surprise me to find several of these every week, nor to find that they very often are made by privileged white guys who think their story needs no better claim on our attention than that they are telling it.
November 25, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Jenny, no one is saying they can’t divert their charitable giving to another organization, it’s the spurious “reasoning” that went into their decisions.
November 25, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Ewps: ¿quién es más loco?.
November 25, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Robert — Well, perhaps. But there’s an “accumulation” factor at work. As Olaf pointed out… it’s another “arrow” in his rhetorical “quiver” — and while he may be facetious in that remark, you can bet there will be plenty of others less generous and more mean-spirited who will cite this as an example of how “liberal” ideology is restrictive, narrow-minded and ultimately self-defeating.
I’m sorry but you can’t simply wish it out of existence.
November 25, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Cameron — Precisely.
November 25, 2008 at 8:03 pm
As Olaf pointed out… it’s another “arrow” in his rhetorical “quiver”
So what. A quiver can only hold so many arrows and if right whingers are foolish enough to toss out something important so that this bit of nonsense can have a place then I encourage them to do it.
November 25, 2008 at 8:12 pm
A fair enough point. It is pretty silly, after all.
November 25, 2008 at 8:26 pm
cf does target a specific group: youth. the good news is that, due to advances made in the last couple of decades, life expectancy is up… to the early thirties. treatment can cost upwards of $50k/yr.
KEvron
November 25, 2008 at 9:18 pm
As with any Association, the executives are required to practice due diligence. These idiots – university students!!??? – should have contacted CF and some doctors about their concerns. They would have learned a thing or two.
This pisses me off immeasurably because the insensitive reasoning is disgusting but worse, the decision shows they don’t even know how to ask questions or make intelligent decisions.
The fact is that medical research into all diseases and disorders often produces results which benefit completely different diseases and disorders. Example – AIDS research. The massive influx of money for AIDS research produced improved diagnostics and treatments for everything from allergies, asthma, arthritis, scleroderma to some forms of cancer. Arthritis research helps a whole group of specific rare diseases. I mean, jesus f’n christmas, this decision is completely ignorant and shameful.
If they simply wanted to support a different cause, that would be fine. But to release their reasoning as somehow being valid and alerting the world that ‘Oh No! CF is a waste of your dollars because not many people have it! We’re not supporting them anymore!’ I mean, that is just ignorant and cruel….who are their parents?!
Lastly, as a person with a rare disorder, who lost family members to more popular diseases, let me share the news that telling someone who is unlucky enough to have an unpopular, or god forbid rare disorder, that their life is not worth helping is straight up sickening. CUSA needs to contact CORD (Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders) for insight. Every life matters. Every life. Even the assholes at Carleton University.
November 25, 2008 at 9:28 pm
“Never mind the ignorance about CF. If CUSA wants to give its funds to a charity (say cancer research) whose beneficiaries are universal, why the hell is this wrong?”
I severely doubt that the Carleton Students’ Association will stop fundraising for charities that benefit… oh, say… racial minorities.
Nor should they.
But that does fail the “universality” litmus test.
The remarkable thing about the motion is that it claimed that volunteers may not want to fundraise for a charity whose benefits isn’t considered universal.
If that’s the case, one supposes they probably won’t fucking volunteer, then, will they?
Just another example demonstrating that stupidity really is non-partisan.
November 25, 2008 at 9:45 pm
I guess donating money for cervical cancer is out?
Sickle Cell Anemia? Forget about it!
November 25, 2008 at 10:03 pm
i had my cervix preemptively removed in my twenties. i wasn’t using it anyway…
KEvron
November 25, 2008 at 11:40 pm
[...] But he’s right as right about the Carleton University kids who decided that Cystic Fibrosis isn’t worth fundraising for because they thought its victims were all white males. [...]
November 26, 2008 at 2:33 am
The “universality” litmus test is fairly absurd when you think about it. As others have pointed out many charities would fail by that standard.
There are a number of things that are quite objectionable about this decision; most egregiously, the fundamental, unscientific ignorance on which the decision seems to have been premised. It’s disappointing that a group of people who really should know better would choose to withhold their generosity on the grounds that the beneficiaries were mistakenly thought to be mainly white males (a prejudice that raises a host of other issues).
As I said earlier, if “universality” is a concern, then they’d be better off directing their efforts towards the United Way that supports a wide array of worthy causes in our communities.
November 26, 2008 at 5:01 am
The “universality” litmus test is fairly absurd when you think about it.
Not if all they were looking for was a slightly better approximation of universality.
As others have pointed out many charities would fail by that standard.
But not all. As soon as you get out of the ‘disease business’ and get into social problems, say like poverty, you may have more luck. And, there are always ‘blanket’ causes, like cancer.
There are a number of things that are quite objectionable about this decision; most egregiously, the fundamental, unscientific ignorance on which the decision seems to have been premised.
Not sure why this bothers everyone so much. Someone had the idea to change charities. I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they came by their reasons honestly, and stated them honestly. So what? The money is going to another charity now – presumably one that is a little more universal (no one said it had to be perfectly universal, did they?). I don’t really see any reason for this to upset me, and to be honest, I could care less what the crazies over at BT think.
This seems so manufactured. It’s not like they took the money and pocketed it.
November 26, 2008 at 5:17 am
I don’t know that we should be equating “honestly” with DUMB.
November 26, 2008 at 6:41 am
Pinko Tory:
This Carlton idiocy exposes the moral and ethical bankruptcy of progressive Liberalism and the fraudulant corrupt premise of it’s rationale.
Liberals are mean spirited , hateful, uncaring racists who would let white men die for the cause of facists Progressive liberalism.
Liberals suck
November 26, 2008 at 6:45 am
I think you may have noticed that I was taking a critical position, so to paint ALL liberals with your great, big broad brush as being “racists” and “fascists” is more than a bit silly, no?
November 26, 2008 at 6:52 am
Pinko Tory:
Very few Liberals think as critical as you!
Hence the liberal Carlton racists death wish for and against white men and now women who in fact make up a large number of victims and deaths from CF.
November 26, 2008 at 6:57 am
I guess I’m just having a hard time getting worked up over this rather boring event. They gave a reason; the money is being redirected; I’m not sure what is so incredibly abhorrent about it.
It seems that the easy way out would be to say that they should have avoided giving a reason, if it was, as you say, a dumb reason. Personally, were it my money, I’d rather they provided a reason, even if it were flimsy.
All I’m saying is that it seems like as good a reason as any to switch to a different charity. I really feel like all of this results in fueling the rage of a few BT nutjobs. Is there any less merit to asking why other student associations are sticking with their particular choices? Is there any point in getting fired up over any of this? You claim it makes ‘progressives’ look bad. I just don’t see it.
Let me pose a hypothetical: Had they switched to a different charity on the grounds that they believed that the old charity’s financial operations were inefficient, and the new ones were more efficient, would we somehow find a way to say that this was a ‘dumb’ reason, and that it was morally repugnant to withdraw support just to protect our narrow financial interests?
Obviously I’m aware the analogy is not perfect, but there are enough similarities that we should ask ourselves why we care.
November 26, 2008 at 7:01 am
Red:
By the way, I wouldn’t find it the least bit interesting to discuss this if someone wasn’t arguing for the other perspective. I find the manufactured rage puzzling, but the issue is worthy of discussion (Steve’s idiotic raving notwithstanding).
November 26, 2008 at 7:03 am
Also: in my analogy, I should probably elucidate the fact that, considering financial ‘interests’ (loosely) to be a typical province of the ‘right’, would we subsequently impugn the entire right-wing because this hypothetical student association decided to protect their financial interests?
November 26, 2008 at 7:05 am
Steve — I rather doubt that Carleton SU have a determined “death wish” — probably more just a case of fundamentally good intentions gone a bit askew for various reasons.
And by the way, is it really necessary to call me a “Pinko”? That suggests that I’m a Communist, which clearly isn’t the case. If you persist, then I’ll just take to calling you “Nazi Steve”… How’s that work for you?
November 26, 2008 at 7:09 am
Dave — I really don’t know (nor do I care to find out) how the BTs may be dealing with this issue. From my perspective, it’s not a matter of “rage” but more just one of disappointment. I expect “liberals” to check their facts and proceed from that basis — that doesn’t seem to be the case in this instance however.
November 26, 2008 at 7:09 am
Liberal Philosoraptor:
How Liberal minded of you to equate disgust over progressive liberalisms facists attempt to justify the death of white males as manufactured rage
How clever of you smarty pants
November 26, 2008 at 7:25 am
Seems to me that if the Carlton students wanted to support diversity they’d take a look at their almost exclusively white, predominantly male Board of Governors.
http://www.carleton.ca/boardofgovernors/members/index.html
November 26, 2008 at 7:39 am
Dave — That seems a bit unfair.
Look, there’s nothing wrong with “diversity” (or “universality” if you will)… my kvetch is more just that the rationale behind this decision seems to have been egregiously flawed insofar as it was completely unscientific at its root and driven by some haywire ideology oddly prejudiced against “white men” (and hey, we’re fair enough game for discrimination… but it just seemed inappropriate in this context).
Anyway, I think we’ve beaten this poor horse to death.
November 26, 2008 at 8:34 am
Steve,
Its Carleton. If you can’t spell it right, after 40 posts, then really your blathering ideologically driven opinion is about as worthless and fact based ast that of the CUSA team that dreamt this up. As in, worthless.
Jenny,
A lot more than 15 years. I first took part in Shinerama in 1986 and it was a tradition then.
If you make a decision based on incorrect information and flawed reasoning, then the decision is wrong. Period. Full stop.
The facts and the motion itself betray what this is really about – they don’t know what charity they are going to support, but it sure as hell isn’t going to be one that only affects “white men”. So, we are going to abandon 20+ years of frosh week tradition in support of a deadly, horrific disease in order to look good and inclusive.
Every person on that Council that voted for motion should be fired from office. Students should refuse to pay their CUSA fees.
Enough is enough.
Being respectful of diversity is one thing, but this kind of blind, ideologically driven idiocy based on incorrect “facts” and premises crosses the line.
November 26, 2008 at 9:47 am
Mike:
Mr. Liberal Smarty pants, why do equate a spelling error with the legitimacy of my opinion?
That is textbook Liberal facism to shut down counter opinions when you are losing the debate, have you ever made a spelling mistake? I bet you have smarty pants.
Why do liberals do that? it is so elitist, so facists, so simple minded, smarty pants
November 26, 2008 at 10:23 am
Steve — I’ll let Mike speak for himself, but as your criticism applies to ALL “liberals” (which Mike isn’t, by the way — he’s a libertarian), the reason this dispute over minor matters of spelling, etc., occurs not infrequently is because words matter and we (”liberals”) tend to have a persnickety concern about such things.
The operative principle is that if you can’t be bothered to get the details right, then it’s quite likely that your broader point is likely to be flawed due to sloppy thinking and generally shoddy intellectual carelessness. If that’s regarded as being “elitist”… well too fucking bad.
November 26, 2008 at 10:37 am
“Steve” is either:
* 16 years old;
* brain-damaged;
* a moron.
or, perhaps a combination of all three.
November 26, 2008 at 10:39 am
Mr. Tory
I would suggest that your dismissive elitist liberal
persnickety concern about such things as a spelling mistake is the very reason Liberals are so out of touch with reality , which leads to elitism, which leads to facism, which leads to racist hateful actions against white men with CF.
November 26, 2008 at 10:39 am
Student Unions/Associations are almost always governed by an unthinking radical fringe. Why should Carleton University in 2008-9 be excluded from this general rule?
November 26, 2008 at 10:40 am
I would suspect that the Student’s Union make-up is more socialist than liberal anway …
November 26, 2008 at 10:41 am
Anus the Younger
Loser says what?
November 26, 2008 at 10:47 am
“which leads to elitism, which leads to facism (sic), which leads to racist hateful actions against white men with …”
* Elitism is part of the core of both traditional conservatism and liberalism;
* Fascism is an ideology concerned with radical conceptions of modernity conjoined to myth. How is it relevant to the discussion at hand?
* Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another and that all other races/ethnicities should be subject to suppression and domination by the “superior” race. Again, how is that relevant to the issue under discussion?
Now … please go crawl back under the clump of rotting earth that you emerged from. You are of no use to us here. I am no racist, but I am thoroughly opposed to stupid rednecks.
And THAT my friends, is Elitism at work.
November 26, 2008 at 10:50 am
Steve — A respectful concern about the proper use of language can hardly be said to be a logical path to Fascism or “racist hateful actions against white men with CF.” I would suggest that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, and furthermore, that you appear to be somewhat mentally disturbed.
November 26, 2008 at 10:53 am
Anus the Younger Liberal Fascist
You Smarty pants
Loser says what?
November 26, 2008 at 10:59 am
Mr. Tory
That’s not a very nice thing to say, not very inclusive , and very intolerant of you.
November 26, 2008 at 11:02 am
Mr. Tory
You missed the point, it’s not a respectful concern for the proper use of language, it is a textbook Liberal way to disparage diffiering opinion.
November 26, 2008 at 11:03 am
That’s not a very nice thing to say, not very inclusive , and very intolerant of you.
Post the IP.
November 26, 2008 at 11:03 am
Yawn.
If you’re going to troll, at least attempt to be a little more creative in your efforts, okay?
November 26, 2008 at 11:34 am
Steve — You can elect to view it that way, but it’s a pretty insipid opinion, imho. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard this feeble argument advanced by all manner of intellectual slackwits and moronic deadbeats as a pathetic excuse for their baneful stupidity and ignorance, and I’m sorry to say that it cuts no ice with me whatsoever.
November 26, 2008 at 11:48 am
Mr. Tory
You got me, you win, I cannot compete with such intellectual incoherence and linguistic gymnastics.
I need a hug
November 26, 2008 at 11:52 am
You need to have your mommy cut off your Internet.
November 26, 2008 at 11:59 am
“There are a number of things that are quite objectionable about this decision; most egregiously, the fundamental, unscientific ignorance on which the decision seems to have been premised. It’s disappointing that a group of people who really should know better would choose to withhold their generosity on the grounds that the beneficiaries were mistakenly thought to be mainly white males (a prejudice that raises a host of other issues).”
I partially disagree. I don’t think the universality litmus test was ever what this was about at all — I think this is all about a bunch of douchebaggy student councillors trying to show off how progressive they allegedly are by cutting off support for a “white man’s disease” in favour of some other charity that — to the best of my knowledge — was never actually identified. Probably something far short of “universal”.
To describe it as full-out racist is hyperbole (or at least should be). In one particular sense, it may be good for a facetious chuckle. But considering that the student body of most universities continue to remain disproportionately white — certainly, at least, around my neck of the woods — to cast the entire issue as flat-out racial certainly obscures the issue.
The point that I’m trying to make here is that the false scientific pretenses under which the decision were made is a little less alarming than the fact that these student councilors thought they could get away clean if they just dismissed Cystic Fibrosis as affecting a bunch of white men. After all, nobody gives a shit about them, right?
November 26, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I can’t presume to get into their heads and imagine what the ulterior thought process was here. I’m just going by the statements made and dealing with them accordingly.
Of course you can differ on what the most egregious aspect of this little fracas is, but to me, it’s the goofy, fact-free, unscientific premise of their decision that sticks out.
You may well have a point, but it takes a leap of the imagination to impute the motives suggested. We can’t say with certainty that “these student councilors thought they could get away clean if they just dismissed Cystic Fibrosis as affecting a bunch of white men”… Perhaps that may be the case, but it comes across as a bit nefarious don’t you think? Conjuring up that sort of “bad faith” on the part of the CUSA seems rather unfair.
November 26, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Steve — It’s not a matter of winning or losing.
I think that approaching things from that divisive, zero-sum perspective might be part of your problem.
Generally speaking, discussions around here don’t work on this bogus premise. Instead, we seek to freely explore issues and perhaps learn things, irrespective of the political orientation of the commenter.
November 26, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Well, I think you’re certainly right about that — this does take a leap of imagination. I think of it as accounting for all the possible factors.
I certainly invite you to read some “if/then” statements into that — it’s essentially what it’s meant as.
November 26, 2008 at 12:46 pm
And what’s so bad about mostly white males getting help for a disease? Besides, when I think of people drinking to raise money, I think of mostly white males participating in the first place… unfortunately.
CUSA has some pretty dumb ideas I guess.
November 26, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“What OLaf said.”
“the ubiquitous Oppressive White Male Who Is The Source Of All Global Evil™?”
to the word?
if olaf’s indignation went anywhere beyond his concern for the oppressed white male, i might be inclined to agree, but as i suspect he’s never given cf a moment’s thought…
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Well, the spectrum of identity politics is now complete, with the white male being the latest to join a whine- (…and sausage-) fest.
Still, when I look at the corporate boardrooms and the legislatures, I’m once again reminded of just how gullible people can be.
November 26, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Oh I found this on SA.
“And yeah, I can dish some good gossip on the Carleton Students’ Association (CUSA) There’s one guy there who’s been making $35,000+ with full union benefits for the past 7 years, while taking the bare minimum of 1 credit per year.
He’s managed to get it written into his contract that should he be fired or let go he gets 2 YEARS’ severance pay. He’s also a somewhat fanatical leftist of the Trotskyist variety (who I believe only exist on university campuses)…and so he fits in quite well”
I wanted to go to Carleton, but then I went to Laurier (and now I’m dropping out…HAH).
November 26, 2008 at 1:39 pm
thanks for that, clay.
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 1:43 pm
KEv — I’ll back away from that initial statement as my objection differs somewhat from Olaf’s apparent indignation with regards to the persecution of the “ubiquitous Oppressive White Male Who Is The Source Of All Global Evil™”… As noted previously here, my problem centers more on the fallacious premise of the complaint rather than the presumed “liberal” motive targeting white men as not being sufficiently “inclusive”…
November 26, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Hey Clayton, I heard about this Conservative parliamentary aid who makes $186,000 and has an expense account you wouldn’t believe; hiring limos all over the place, staying in four-star hotels in Dubai, and who eats lobster for breakfast! And if his contract is terminated, he’ll get two year’s salary. He’s also a somewhat fanatical right-wingnut of the Grover Norquist variety (who I believe only exist in the “Beltway” environment)…and so he fits in quite well.
Of course, that’s all just “gossip” that I made up.
You fucking prat.
November 26, 2008 at 2:09 pm
“when I look at the corporate boardrooms and the legislatures”
the undercurrent of oppresed white male resentment going on over there brings a tear to my arse.
so cusa had an ostensibly shitty rationale; big fucking deal. this kind of “injustice” is so rare that when the occasional case of politcal corectness, having any arguably negative consequence, rears its head, we get 80 comments a thread. genuine, systematic inequity is a 24/7 issue for millions.
now, before you get on my case, rt; i’m not lumping you in with the other OWMs. still, cusa’s misguided rationale isn’t the boogeyman it’s being made out to be, and the consequences are likely to be minor. and look where you’ve found yourself: bedded up with OWMs, bearing their own imagined grudge.
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 2:11 pm
oops! was drafting mine (wise cracks are easy; delicate is hard) when you posted yours, rt.
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Kev …
That was ALMOST coherent! ;>)
November 26, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“the fallacious premise of the complaint”
i get it now. loaf mentioned the same, but then the thread turned into a support group (“bob had bitch tits.”).
it’s hard werk, being a white man in a white world…
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 2:22 pm
“That was ALMOST coherent!”
eat my shorts.
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 2:25 pm
What flavour be they?
November 26, 2008 at 2:26 pm
note spelling, Yank.
November 26, 2008 at 2:27 pm
All this was is yet another example of insipid student politics.
November 26, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“What flavour be they?”
last night’s supper.
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 2:30 pm
KEv — As I said, my kvetch here is quite specific and particular and it relates to the stunning lack of intellectual rigor underlying this decision. All of the other stuff is peripheral, arguable and, quite frankly, of little concern to me. Some people are attempting to conflate this with the human rights controversy or even more ambitiously, striving to extrapolate it into some damning indictment of “liberalism” in general… Well, you can imagine my profound groaning at such nonsense. Bottom line is that it’s really just a rather trivial case of some ill-informed “political correctness” gone awry.
November 26, 2008 at 2:34 pm
“‘political correctness’ gone awry.”
heh. at some point, either here or at loaf’s, i had started to use that same expression before abandoning it!
i discriminate only in taste.
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I like Pizza the next day …
November 26, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I don’t see this as a “political” issue per se. In my experience, “Teh Stupid” is completely non-partisan and rather indiscriminate.
November 26, 2008 at 3:02 pm
agreed.
November 26, 2008 at 3:21 pm
lol! loaf censored my use of “niggers of the world”!
what he lacks in an appreciation for irony he makes up for in unintentional irony.
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 3:31 pm
seriously, rt, don’t ever fucking say “what olaf said” again! the more i peel his onion, the stinkier he gets, and his crafted persona fails to mask it.
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 3:33 pm
You’re determined to push this sucker over 100, aren’t you?
So what was Olaf’s problem with “Niggers of the World”? The “N-word”? Feh.
November 26, 2008 at 3:34 pm
“You fucking prat.”
what
November 26, 2008 at 3:46 pm
KEv — Duly noted and I’ll be a bit more cautious in future. To be quite honest, I didn’t delve into this subject beforehand and and just seized immediately on what I thought was a ludicrous decision based on a foolish premise.
The “white men” aspect of it didn’t really resonate with me at all given that I’m a classic WASP, and therefore have heard this indictment forever. For the most part I just shrug it off and don’t regard it all that seriously. Sorry for being white… and English… The “Evil Empire” and all that rot.
November 26, 2008 at 3:46 pm
“You’re determined to push this sucker over 100, aren’t you?”
does it matter? you know me, i comment as it occurs to me, and the back and forth spurs me on.
he edited “niggers” to “ni**ers”, so i’ve asked him what “ni**ers” means. of course, marm won’t touch it with a ten foot ruler.
people, “f*ck” and “fuck” are the same thing: scripted representations of a word, which itself only represents an idea (however they say “fuck off” is swazilandese gets the same result as “fuck off” does here). you’re not fooling g_d…
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 3:49 pm
For the record, I’m not backing KEvron here. I thought it was interesting, I posted it.
I’m not seeing the problem here?
November 26, 2008 at 3:50 pm
No, it doesn’t matter in the least… Just an idle observation on my part.
November 26, 2008 at 3:52 pm
KEv — Oh, for fuck’s sake, are you kidding? Olaf actually bowdlerized your comments with asterisks?
Pathetic.
Man, I hate it when people do that. It’s so f*cking lame.
November 26, 2008 at 3:52 pm
it’s all good, rt. just joshing. your initial endorsement didn’t prepare me for the un-met expectations.
but the irony! olaf, on that thread, playing the pc marm! i’m tempted to see how well “ofay” plays there, the poor, oppressed darlings…
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“For the record, I’m not backing KEvron here.”
i guess i should have called you a fucking prat…
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Thanks?
November 26, 2008 at 4:04 pm
KEv — Well, you know that I’ve got no problem with profanity and, in fact, regard it as something of an art form.
November 26, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Fuck it. I’m done.
November 26, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Clayton — This really isn’t worth battling over. Pick another fight and provide some solid back-up for your allegations.
November 26, 2008 at 4:18 pm
“Fuck it. I’m done.”
you offered a dubious quote, and without a link. you were done before you got started.
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Anyway, you should catch the whine- and sausage-fest going on over at Warren Kinsella’s over this issue (which I doubt Kinsella was even inviting). All the familiar, perennially-aggrieved wingnuts showed up to lament their poor, persecuted white maleness.
These guys just aren’t getting laid enough.
November 26, 2008 at 4:34 pm
why do equate a spelling error with the legitimacy of my opinion?
It’s not just the spelling, it’s the grammar too.
November 26, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Moebius — Zing! Good one.
November 26, 2008 at 4:43 pm
evben wk is knee jerking.
has anyone (other than me, of course, ’cause i’m so effin’ smart) bothered to consider the actual consequences of cusa’s decision? they’re not all that dramatic, really.
i gave to sca; that must mean i want white males to die of cf…
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 4:57 pm
oh, the irony!
loaf has just accused me of “gratuitous race baiting”! him! on that thread!
i’ve never felt so… oppressed!
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I suppose I should trudge over there and check out the festivities, huh?
November 26, 2008 at 5:18 pm
All the familiar, perennially-aggrieved wingnuts showed up to lament their poor, persecuted white maleness.
Damn it, white males are people too.
The tacked on reason for walking away from CF was wrong and dumb, and there’s been general outrage about it. I’d hate to see their reaction if this story had simply been ignored.
And whomever tacked on that comment about CF being a disease of white males — charity is suppose to bring people together, not divide them.
November 26, 2008 at 5:36 pm
KEv — Yikes! I checked that out and got a really nasty vibe. Thought about leaving a comment and just couldn’t be bothered. (p.s. Did you mean “pound salt” rather than sand, or is that some idiomatic peculiarity in CA?)
November 26, 2008 at 5:45 pm
“Did you mean ‘pound salt’ rather than sand”
i know both expressions.
loaf banned me, of course. said nobody knows what i’m talking about, even though the only people commenting were twats and i, playing grabass, and olaf occassionally sanitizing his precious blog (heh. he let “honky” and “ofay” stand!).
personally, i thought i made myself perfectly clear.
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 6:06 pm
KEv — Oh, okay… I learned something today then. I’d never heard the “sand” version of that expression.
“loaf”… LOL (Poor Olaf. We’ve had some good discussions and he’s one of the more reasonable conservatives out there. Odd that he’s imposing such silly restrictions with regards to profanity… to each his own, I guess.)
I saw the sniping between you and Patrick over there and just didn’t feel getting involved. Too boring.
November 26, 2008 at 6:38 pm
yeah, i know. who asked you to? i just thought his pc scrubbing was funny, considering the emphasis on OWMs and the political correctness that oppresses them so.
look, bub, yer the one that sent me over there.
KEvron
ps, i honestly didn’t expect the reaction to what i thought was a somewhat widely known quote. i was just putting an ironic twist on an ironic classic. so no finger pointing. the second time? sure, i knew i was pressing, but that was after.
November 26, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Sorry for the misdirection.
I see the person pretending to be “Raphael Alexander” made an appearance, chiming in to beg Olaf that you be banned from his site. Presumptuous, much?
Whatever. Consider that a perverse form of flattery. Apparently you’re “offensive” to his delicate, oh-so-precious sensibilities.
November 26, 2008 at 7:22 pm
“Presumptuous, much?”
“raphael” does that on every blog on which he and i cross paths. i love that sofa-dwelling nut!
KEvron
November 26, 2008 at 8:50 pm
At the risk of getting all scientific and everything, I consulted the Great Gazoogle, and found:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/cf/cf_risk.html
Whaddya know, it IS an inclusive disease after all.
Oh Carleton…
November 26, 2008 at 8:52 pm
At the risk of getting all scientific and everything, I consulted the Great Gazoogle, and found:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/cf/cf_risk.html
Whaddya know, it IS an inclusive disease after all.
November 26, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Testing…testing…wordpress sucks…
November 26, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Okay. Now here’s what I tried to post earlier and got stymied twice:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/cf/cf_risk.html
Guess CF *is* an inclusive disease after all.
November 26, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Further testing: WordPress sucks.
Will THIS work, I wonder?
November 26, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Glory be, it does work! Go to the link, folks. Seems CF *is* an inclusive disease, after all!
November 27, 2008 at 8:53 am
From the right? I consider myself left of the CUSA consensus and they’re taking heaps of ridicule from me.