Image 01 Image 03

UC Berkeley LGBT Activists Seem Disappointed AA Bake Sale Did Not Discriminate Against Them

UC Berkeley LGBT Activists Seem Disappointed AA Bake Sale Did Not Discriminate Against Them

Zombie (via NiceDeb) reports that some in the Berkeley LGBT community were offended that the bake sale did not target them (Of course, they wouldn’t be getting preferences under the proposed legislation anyway, so it would be quite odd if anything about the bake sale did have anything to do with them):

Elsewhere, a (presumably) gay student was greatly offended that the discriminatory price list didn’t also insult and degrade queers. No fair! If you Republicans aren’t sufficiently bigoted against us, then we’ll lose relevance! By leaving any mention of us out of your bake sale, you discriminated against us by not discriminating against us!

As I said earlier this week, it’s a political game.  Denying an identity group activist a grievance is far worse for them institutionally than giving them one by offending them.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Apparently, queer people don’t exist (like the rest of us).

This woman has mad skills. I want to know how she got the paper in the hula hoops. The paper doesn’t look torn. Was the hula hoop cut? I DON’T KNOW!!! Please, someone, anyone, FILL ME IN!!

Insult? Degrade” Discriminate against? Bigoted against?

Apparently we’ve lost utterly the meaning of English. The pricing structure favored all of the listed groups, as in discriminating FOR, not against. The target of the discrimination was clearly white males (presumably also hetros). Everyone else got a break.

Man, they come into college stupid, and leave even stupider!

(Quiksilverz24: she ain’t that good. The paper is attached at its very edge; there is no hole thru the paper.)

Considering the fact that the people of California have passed a Constitutional Amendment specifically prohibiting the very racial preferences the new law cooked up in Sacramento, don’t you think its odd that none of the news coverage of said law bothers to mention the fact that it is clearly unconstitutional?