Liberty Mutual Insurance is documented using an executive training program
that specifically prohibits white people from participating:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wtt0rnchn4g6a1i2e6nm3/Liberty.png?rlkey=jp7uspk3mfox4ub82v3jjolo9&dl=0

This seems like a bright-line violation of the Civil Rights Act and many other
EEOC rules and regulations. But it's in service to woke 'progressivism', so
the odds that the Biden DOJ will even consider an investigation are slim to
none.

It is interesting that the criteria for participation specifies employees who
"identify as Asian, black, or latinx". Not that they have to *be* Asian,
black, or latinx, just that they identify as such. (Even though "latinks"
doesn't actually exist; it's just a word made up by white saviors that is
roundly rejected by the vast majority of latinos, who find it offensive.)

Since the criteria is "identifies as", if I was a white Liberty Mutual
employee, I'd just start identifying as black and show up for the training and
enjoy the progs' sputtering reaction.

In article <tEKdnUOfefIe4ED5nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
<atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> Liberty Mutual Insurance is documented using an executive training program
> that specifically prohibits white people from participating:
>
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wtt0rnchn4g6a1i2e6nm3/Liberty.png?rlkey=jp7uspk
> 3mfox4ub82v3jjolo9&dl=0
>
> This seems like a bright-line violation of the Civil Rights Act and many other
> EEOC rules and regulations. But it's in service to woke 'progressivism', so
> the odds that the Biden DOJ will even consider an investigation are slim to
> none.
>
> It is interesting that the criteria for participation specifies employees who
> "identify as Asian, black, or latinx". Not that they have to *be* Asian,
> black, or latinx, just that they identify as such. (Even though "latinks"
> doesn't actually exist; it's just a word made up by white saviors that is
> roundly rejected by the vast majority of latinos, who find it offensive.)
>
> Since the criteria is "identifies as", if I was a white Liberty Mutual
> employee, I'd just start identifying as black and show up for the training and
> enjoy the progs' sputtering reaction.

Sure you would, before they threw your ass out and ruined your career.
For my part, I'd risk my continuing employment on something more
worthwhile.

On Aug 16, 2023 at 6:58:07 PM PDT, "A Friend" <nope@noway.com> wrote:

> In article <tEKdnUOfefIe4ED5nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Liberty Mutual Insurance is documented using an executive training program
>> that specifically prohibits white people from participating:
>>
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wtt0rnchn4g6a1i2e6nm3/Liberty.png?rlkey=jp7uspk
>> 3mfox4ub82v3jjolo9&dl=0
>>
>> This seems like a bright-line violation of the Civil Rights Act and many
>> other
>> EEOC rules and regulations. But it's in service to woke 'progressivism', so
>> the odds that the Biden DOJ will even consider an investigation are slim to
>> none.
>>
>> It is interesting that the criteria for participation specifies employees
>> who
>> "identify as Asian, black, or latinx". Not that they have to *be* Asian,
>> black, or latinx, just that they identify as such. (Even though "latinks"
>> doesn't actually exist; it's just a word made up by white saviors that is
>> roundly rejected by the vast majority of latinos, who find it offensive.)
>>
>> Since the criteria is "identifies as", if I was a white Liberty Mutual
>> employee, I'd just start identifying as black and show up for the training
>> and
>> enjoy the progs' sputtering reaction.
>
> Sure you would, before they threw your ass out and ruined your career.
> For my part, I'd risk my continuing employment on something more
> worthwhile.

Well, it's not like I don't have a history of actually standing up to this
workplace racial discrimination bullshit. In 2019, everyone in my field office
was forced to sit and endure one of these DIE 'classes' on the evol, evol
whites.

The girl running the thing wanted the white employees to write a letter to the
black employees apologizing for our racism and promising to do things like
stand aside in the future and allow blacks to have promotions that we were in
line for, etc.

I refused. The social justice warrior teaching the drivel didn't know what to
do. I guess she'd never encountered someone who'd just said no before. During
the lunch break, my boss found me and was like, "Look I know this is all
bullshit but just do it and get it over with." I still refused. I told him
there were certain lines in life and this crap crossed one and I wouldn't be
writing any virtue-signaling fake confessions of guilt for this half-assed
truth and reconciliation commission.

He sighed and told me I was excused from the rest of the class. No career
repercussions came my way because they all knew this shit, when boiled down to
its essentials, is ILLEGAL, and if they fucked with me, there'd be a better
than even chance that the only agent in the office who was also a lawyer,
would sue them into oblivion.

On 8/16/23 8:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Liberty Mutual Insurance is documented using an executive training program
> that specifically prohibits white people from participating:
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wtt0rnchn4g6a1i2e6nm3/Liberty.png?rlkey=jp7uspk3mfox4ub82v3jjolo9&dl=0
>
> This seems like a bright-line violation of the Civil Rights Act and many other
> EEOC rules and regulations. But it's in service to woke 'progressivism', so
> the odds that the Biden DOJ will even consider an investigation are slim to
> none.
>
> It is interesting that the criteria for participation specifies employees who
> "identify as Asian, black, or latinx". Not that they have to *be* Asian,
> black, or latinx, just that they identify as such. (Even though "latinks"
> doesn't actually exist; it's just a word made up by white saviors that is
> roundly rejected by the vast majority of latinos, who find it offensive.)
>
> Since the criteria is "identifies as", if I was a white Liberty Mutual
> employee, I'd just start identifying as black and show up for the training and
> enjoy the progs' sputtering reaction.

It's interesting that these kind of things have you with your head
permanently implanted up your ass. And do you have a cite other than a
dropbox link? Because you are a known liar.

On 2023-08-16 9:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Liberty Mutual Insurance is documented using an executive training program
> that specifically prohibits white people from participating:
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wtt0rnchn4g6a1i2e6nm3/Liberty.png?rlkey=jp7uspk3mfox4ub82v3jjolo9&dl=0
>
> This seems like a bright-line violation of the Civil Rights Act and many other
> EEOC rules and regulations. But it's in service to woke 'progressivism', so
> the odds that the Biden DOJ will even consider an investigation are slim to
> none.
>
> It is interesting that the criteria for participation specifies employees who
> "identify as Asian, black, or latinx". Not that they have to *be* Asian,
> black, or latinx, just that they identify as such. (Even though "latinks"
> doesn't actually exist; it's just a word made up by white saviors that is
> roundly rejected by the vast majority of latinos, who find it offensive.)
>
> Since the criteria is "identifies as", if I was a white Liberty Mutual
> employee, I'd just start identifying as black and show up for the training and
> enjoy the progs' sputtering reaction.
>
>
Hey, it worked for Rachel Dolezal at the NAACP, at least for a while.
And look at all the benefits that accrued to Sen. "Cheekbones" Warren....

I remember reading a comment on an article where a guy mentioned that
his co-worker was a white man born in South Africa who was now a
naturalized American. When asked to fill out HR forms, he inevitably
ticked "African-American" which apparently greatly frustrated the HR
people because that wasn't what THEY meant by "African-American" but it
was technically correct so they couldn't stop him from doing it.

--
Rhino

In article <ubl272$3ka51$2@dont-email.me>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

> On 2023-08-16 9:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> > Liberty Mutual Insurance is documented using an executive training program
> > that specifically prohibits white people from participating:
> >
> > https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wtt0rnchn4g6a1i2e6nm3/Liberty.png?rlkey=jp7us
> > pk3mfox4ub82v3jjolo9&dl=0
> >
> > This seems like a bright-line violation of the Civil Rights Act and many
> > other EEOC rules and regulations. But it's in service to woke
> > 'progressivism', so the odds that the Biden DOJ will even consider an
> > investigation are slim to none.
> >
> > It is interesting that the criteria for participation specifies employees
> > who "identify as Asian, black, or latinx". Not that they have to *be*
> > Asian, black, or latinx, just that they identify as such. (Even though
> > "latinks" doesn't actually exist; it's just a word made up by white
> > saviors that is roundly rejected by the vast majority of latinos, who
> > find it offensive.)
> >
> > Since the criteria is "identifies as", if I was a white Liberty Mutual
> > employee, I'd just start identifying as black and show up for the training
> > and enjoy the progs' sputtering reaction.
> >
> Hey, it worked for Rachel Dolezal at the NAACP, at least for a while.
> And look at all the benefits that accrued to Sen. "Cheekbones" Warren....
>
> I remember reading a comment on an article where a guy mentioned that
> his co-worker was a white man born in South Africa who was now a
> naturalized American. When asked to fill out HR forms, he inevitably
> ticked "African-American" which apparently greatly frustrated the HR
> people because that wasn't what THEY meant by "African-American" but it
> was technically correct so they couldn't stop him from doing it.

I've posted this before:

Back when I was in college, we had a student cause all sorts of
liberal-proggie angst when she applied for one of the university's
African-American scholarships.

Problem was, she was as blonde, blue-eyed, and white as Kristen Bell.

But you see, she was born of American diplomats living in South Africa,
so she had dual citizenship. She literally was African-American.

Of course the school denied her, saying, "But... but.. but... that's not
what we meant! We meant "black", but since we can't say "black", we had
to use the PC-approved term."

She ended up suing the school and the court ruled in her favor, telling
the university that if they meant "black", they should have said "black"
and as there was no actual requirement anywhere in the scholarship
eligibility requirements other than the student be "African-American",
the girl met the qualifications.

So many progs' heads exploded on campus that day, it was like the 4th of
July. I remember it fondly..

AwwOn 8/17/23 1:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>In article <ubl272$3ka51$2@dont-email.me>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-08-16 9:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> > Liberty Mutual Insurance is documented using an executive training program
>> > that specifically prohibits white people from participating:
>> >
>> > https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wtt0rnchn4g6a1i2e6nm3/Liberty.png?rlkey=jp7us
>> > pk3mfox4ub82v3jjolo9&dl=0
>> >
>> > This seems like a bright-line violation of the Civil Rights Act and many
>> > other EEOC rules and regulations. But it's in service to woke
>> > 'progressivism', so the odds that the Biden DOJ will even consider an
>> > investigation are slim to none.
>> >
>> > It is interesting that the criteria for participation specifies employees
>> > who "identify as Asian, black, or latinx". Not that they have to *be*
>> > Asian, black, or latinx, just that they identify as such. (Even though
>> > "latinks" doesn't actually exist; it's just a word made up by white
>> > saviors that is roundly rejected by the vast majority of latinos, who
>> > find it offensive.)
>> >
>> > Since the criteria is "identifies as", if I was a white Liberty Mutual
>> > employee, I'd just start identifying as black and show up for the training
>> > and enjoy the progs' sputtering reaction.
>> >
>> Hey, it worked for Rachel Dolezal at the NAACP, at least for a while.
>> And look at all the benefits that accrued to Sen. "Cheekbones" Warren....
>>
>> I remember reading a comment on an article where a guy mentioned that
>> his co-worker was a white man born in South Africa who was now a
>> naturalized American. When asked to fill out HR forms, he inevitably
>> ticked "African-American" which apparently greatly frustrated the HR
>> people because that wasn't what THEY meant by "African-American" but it
>> was technically correct so they couldn't stop him from doing it.
>
>I've posted this before:
>
>Back when I was in college, we had a student cause all sorts of
>liberal-proggie angst when she applied for one of the university's
>African-American scholarships.
>
>Problem was, she was as blonde, blue-eyed, and white as Kristen Bell.
>
>But you see, she was born of American diplomats living in South Africa,
>so she had dual citizenship. She literally was African-American.
>
>Of course the school denied her, saying, "But... but.. but... that's not
>what we meant! We meant "black", but since we can't say "black", we had
>to use the PC-approved term."
>
>She ended up suing the school and the court ruled in her favor, telling
>the university that if they meant "black", they should have said "black"
>and as there was no actual requirement anywhere in the scholarship
>eligibility requirements other than the student be "African-American",
>the girl met the qualifications.
>
>So many progs' heads exploded on campus that day, it was like the 4th of
>July. I remember it fondly..

And you don't have a site for this fake f****** story either Is that
correct? Of course it is.

--
This space for rent.

AOn 8/17/23 1:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>In article <ubl272$3ka51$2@dont-email.me>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-08-16 9:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> > Liberty Mutual Insurance is documented using an executive training program
>> > that specifically prohibits white people from participating:
>> >
>> > https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wtt0rnchn4g6a1i2e6nm3/Liberty.png?rlkey=jp7us
>> > pk3mfox4ub82v3jjolo9&dl=0
>> >
>> > This seems like a bright-line violation of the Civil Rights Act and many
>> > other EEOC rules and regulations. But it's in service to woke
>> > 'progressivism', so the odds that the Biden DOJ will even consider an
>> > investigation are slim to none.
>> >
>> > It is interesting that the criteria for participation specifies employees
>> > who "identify as Asian, black, or latinx". Not that they have to *be*
>> > Asian, black, or latinx, just that they identify as such. (Even though
>> > "latinks" doesn't actually exist; it's just a word made up by white
>> > saviors that is roundly rejected by the vast majority of latinos, who
>> > find it offensive.)
>> >
>> > Since the criteria is "identifies as", if I was a white Liberty Mutual
>> > employee, I'd just start identifying as black and show up for the training
>> > and enjoy the progs' sputtering reaction.
>> >
>> Hey, it worked for Rachel Dolezal at the NAACP, at least for a while.
>> And look at all the benefits that accrued to Sen. "Cheekbones" Warren....
>>
>> I remember reading a comment on an article where a guy mentioned that
>> his co-worker was a white man born in South Africa who was now a
>> naturalized American. When asked to fill out HR forms, he inevitably
>> ticked "African-American" which apparently greatly frustrated the HR
>> people because that wasn't what THEY meant by "African-American" but it
>> was technically correct so they couldn't stop him from doing it.
>
>I've posted this before:
>
>Back when I was in college, we had a student cause all sorts of
>liberal-proggie angst when she applied for one of the university's
>African-American scholarships.
>
>Problem was, she was as blonde, blue-eyed, and white as Kristen Bell.
>
>But you see, she was born of American diplomats living in South Africa,
>so she had dual citizenship. She literally was African-American.
>
>Of course the school denied her, saying, "But... but.. but... that's not
>what we meant! We meant "black", but since we can't say "black", we had
>to use the PC-approved term."
>
>She ended up suing the school and the court ruled in her favor, telling
>the university that if they meant "black", they should have said "black"
>and as there was no actual requirement anywhere in the scholarship
>eligibility requirements other than the student be "African-American",
>the girl met the qualifications.
>
>So many progs' heads exploded on campus that day, it was like the 4th of
>July. I remember it fondly..

As expected a Google search for "South African girl sueda college claiming
she was African American" turned up exactly zero hits. A lot of mentions of
Rachel dolezal but that's not the same thing at all. As usual you're
f****** lying until proven otherwise. How droll.
--
This space for rent.

In article <177c49f9f707cc83$1$1954761$faa1acb7@news.newsdemon.com>,
Trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:

> AOn 8/17/23 1:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >In article <ubl272$3ka51$2@dont-email.me>,
> > Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2023-08-16 9:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> >> > Liberty Mutual Insurance is documented using an executive training
> >> > program that specifically prohibits white people from participating:
> >> >
> >> > https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wtt0rnchn4g6a1i2e6nm3/Liberty.png?rlkey=jp
> >> > 7uspk3mfox4ub82v3jjolo9&dl=0
> >> >
> >> > This seems like a bright-line violation of the Civil Rights Act and many
> >> > other EEOC rules and regulations. But it's in service to woke
> >> > 'progressivism', so the odds that the Biden DOJ will even consider an
> >> > investigation are slim to none.
> >> >
> >> > It is interesting that the criteria for participation specifies
> >> > employees who "identify as Asian, black, or latinx". Not that they
> >> > have to *be* Asian, black, or latinx, just that they identify as such.
> >> > (Even though "latinks" doesn't actually exist; it's just a word made
> >> > up by white saviors that is roundly rejected by the vast majority
> >> > of latinos, who find it offensive.)
> >> >
> >> > Since the criteria is "identifies as", if I was a white Liberty Mutual
> >> > employee, I'd just start identifying as black and show up for the
> >> > training and enjoy the progs' sputtering reaction.
> >> >
> >> Hey, it worked for Rachel Dolezal at the NAACP, at least for a while.
> >> And look at all the benefits that accrued to Sen. "Cheekbones" Warren....
> >>
> >> I remember reading a comment on an article where a guy mentioned that
> >> his co-worker was a white man born in South Africa who was now a
> >> naturalized American. When asked to fill out HR forms, he inevitably
> >> ticked "African-American" which apparently greatly frustrated the HR
> >> people because that wasn't what THEY meant by "African-American" but it
> >> was technically correct so they couldn't stop him from doing it.
> >
> >I've posted this before:
> >
> >Back when I was in college, we had a student cause all sorts of
> >liberal-proggie angst when she applied for one of the university's
> >African-American scholarships.
> >
> >Problem was, she was as blonde, blue-eyed, and white as Kristen Bell.
> >
> >But you see, she was born of American diplomats living in South Africa,
> >so she had dual citizenship. She literally was African-American.
> >
> >Of course the school denied her, saying, "But... but.. but... that's not
> >what we meant! We meant "black", but since we can't say "black", we had
> >to use the PC-approved term."
> >
> >She ended up suing the school and the court ruled in her favor, telling
> >the university that if they meant "black", they should have said "black"
> >and as there was no actual requirement anywhere in the scholarship
> >eligibility requirements other than the student be "African-American",
> >the girl met the qualifications.
> >
> >So many progs' heads exploded on campus that day, it was like the 4th of
> >July. I remember it fondly..
>
> As expected a Google search for "South African girl sueda college claiming
> she was African American" turned up exactly zero hits.

Probably because neither Google (nor anyone else) knows what 'sueda'
means, Hutt you galumphing worm.

On 8/17/23 5:43 PM, Trotsky wrote:
> AwwOn 8/17/23 1:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <ubl272$3ka51$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-08-16 9:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>> > Liberty Mutual Insurance is documented using an executive training
>>> program
>>> > that specifically prohibits white people from participating:
>>> > >
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wtt0rnchn4g6a1i2e6nm3/Liberty.png?rlkey=jp7us
>>>
>>> > pk3mfox4ub82v3jjolo9&dl=0
>>> > > This seems like a bright-line violation of the Civil Rights Act
>>> and many > other EEOC rules and regulations. But it's in service to woke
>>> > 'progressivism', so the odds that the Biden DOJ will even consider an
>>> > investigation are slim to none.
>>> > > It is interesting that the criteria for participation specifies
>>> employees > who "identify as Asian, black, or latinx". Not that they
>>> have to *be*
>>> > Asian, black, or latinx, just that they identify as such. (Even though
>>> > "latinks" doesn't actually exist; it's just a word made up by white
>>> > saviors that is roundly rejected by the vast majority of latinos, who
>>> > find it offensive.)
>>> > > Since the criteria is "identifies as", if I was a white Liberty
>>> Mutual
>>> > employee, I'd just start identifying as black and show up for the
>>> training > and enjoy the progs' sputtering reaction.
>>> > Hey, it worked for Rachel Dolezal at the NAACP, at least for a
>>> while. And look at all the benefits that accrued to Sen. "Cheekbones"
>>> Warren....
>>>
>>> I remember reading a comment on an article where a guy mentioned that
>>> his co-worker was a white man born in South Africa who was now a
>>> naturalized American. When asked to fill out HR forms, he inevitably
>>> ticked "African-American" which apparently greatly frustrated the HR
>>> people because that wasn't what THEY meant by "African-American" but
>>> it was technically correct so they couldn't stop him from doing it.
>>
>> I've posted this before:
>>
>> Back when I was in college, we had a student cause all sorts of
>> liberal-proggie angst when she applied for one of the university's
>> African-American scholarships.
>>
>> Problem was, she was as blonde, blue-eyed, and white as Kristen Bell.
>>
>> But you see, she was born of American diplomats living in South
>> Africa, so she had dual citizenship. She literally was African-American.
>>
>> Of course the school denied her, saying, "But... but.. but... that's
>> not what we meant! We meant "black", but since we can't say "black",
>> we had to use the PC-approved term."
>>
>> She ended up suing the school and the court ruled in her favor,
>> telling the university that if they meant "black", they should have
>> said "black" and as there was no actual requirement anywhere in the
>> scholarship eligibility requirements other than the student be
>> "African-American", the girl met the qualifications.
>>
>> So many progs' heads exploded on campus that day, it was like the 4th
>> of July. I remember it fondly..
>
>
> And you don't have a site for this fake f****** story either Is that
> correct? Of course it is.
>
>

That's why there are different categories used by the government.
There's African-American and Black African-American. It's to denote
those with black heritage from those who are whites.

But a moron won't just say that... they prefer to look for nits.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 2023-08-17 2:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <ubl272$3ka51$2@dont-email.me>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-08-16 9:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>> Liberty Mutual Insurance is documented using an executive training program
>>> that specifically prohibits white people from participating:
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wtt0rnchn4g6a1i2e6nm3/Liberty.png?rlkey=jp7us
>>> pk3mfox4ub82v3jjolo9&dl=0
>>>
>>> This seems like a bright-line violation of the Civil Rights Act and many
>>> other EEOC rules and regulations. But it's in service to woke
>>> 'progressivism', so the odds that the Biden DOJ will even consider an
>>> investigation are slim to none.
>>>
>>> It is interesting that the criteria for participation specifies employees
>>> who "identify as Asian, black, or latinx". Not that they have to *be*
>>> Asian, black, or latinx, just that they identify as such. (Even though
>>> "latinks" doesn't actually exist; it's just a word made up by white
>>> saviors that is roundly rejected by the vast majority of latinos, who
>>> find it offensive.)
>>>
>>> Since the criteria is "identifies as", if I was a white Liberty Mutual
>>> employee, I'd just start identifying as black and show up for the training
>>> and enjoy the progs' sputtering reaction.
>>>
>> Hey, it worked for Rachel Dolezal at the NAACP, at least for a while.
>> And look at all the benefits that accrued to Sen. "Cheekbones" Warren....
>>
>> I remember reading a comment on an article where a guy mentioned that
>> his co-worker was a white man born in South Africa who was now a
>> naturalized American. When asked to fill out HR forms, he inevitably
>> ticked "African-American" which apparently greatly frustrated the HR
>> people because that wasn't what THEY meant by "African-American" but it
>> was technically correct so they couldn't stop him from doing it.
>
> I've posted this before:
>
> Back when I was in college, we had a student cause all sorts of
> liberal-proggie angst when she applied for one of the university's
> African-American scholarships.
>
> Problem was, she was as blonde, blue-eyed, and white as Kristen Bell.
>
> But you see, she was born of American diplomats living in South Africa,
> so she had dual citizenship. She literally was African-American.
>
> Of course the school denied her, saying, "But... but.. but... that's not
> what we meant! We meant "black", but since we can't say "black", we had
> to use the PC-approved term."
>
> She ended up suing the school and the court ruled in her favor, telling
> the university that if they meant "black", they should have said "black"
> and as there was no actual requirement anywhere in the scholarship
> eligibility requirements other than the student be "African-American",
> the girl met the qualifications.
>
> So many progs' heads exploded on campus that day, it was like the 4th of
> July. I remember it fondly..

Too bad there's no video of the administrators reacting to the ruling;
I'd love to see that!
--
Rhino

On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 02:19:45 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>I refused. The social justice warrior teaching the drivel didn't know what to
>do. I guess she'd never encountered someone who'd just said no before. During
>the lunch break, my boss found me and was like, "Look I know this is all
>bullshit but just do it and get it over with." I still refused. I told him
>there were certain lines in life and this crap crossed one and I wouldn't be
>writing any virtue-signaling fake confessions of guilt for this half-assed
>truth and reconciliation commission.
>
>He sighed and told me I was excused from the rest of the class. No career
>repercussions came my way because they all knew this shit, when boiled down to
>its essentials, is ILLEGAL, and if they fucked with me, there'd be a better
>than even chance that the only agent in the office who was also a lawyer,
>would sue them into oblivion.
>
At least you didn't get verbally harassed at such length that you
committed suicide like that high school principal.

On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 08:01:37 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>I remember reading a comment on an article where a guy mentioned that
>his co-worker was a white man born in South Africa who was now a
>naturalized American. When asked to fill out HR forms, he inevitably
>ticked "African-American" which apparently greatly frustrated the HR
>people because that wasn't what THEY meant by "African-American" but it
>was technically correct so they couldn't stop him from doing it.

Just like basketball star Steve Nash - oops - he's Canadian though he
was born in Johannesberg

On 8/17/23 4:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>In article <177c49f9f707cc83$1$1954761$faa1acb7@news.newsdemon.com>,
> Trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>
>> AOn 8/17/23 1:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> >In article <ubl272$3ka51$2@dont-email.me>,
>> > Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2023-08-16 9:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Liberty Mutual Insurance is documented using an executive training
>> >> > program that specifically prohibits white people from participating:
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wtt0rnchn4g6a1i2e6nm3/Liberty.png?rlkey=jp
>> >> > 7uspk3mfox4ub82v3jjolo9&dl=0
>> >> >
>> >> > This seems like a bright-line violation of the Civil Rights Act and many
>> >> > other EEOC rules and regulations. But it's in service to woke
>> >> > 'progressivism', so the odds that the Biden DOJ will even consider an
>> >> > investigation are slim to none.
>> >> >
>> >> > It is interesting that the criteria for participation specifies
>> >> > employees who "identify as Asian, black, or latinx". Not that they
>> >> > have to *be* Asian, black, or latinx, just that they identify as such.
>> >> > (Even though "latinks" doesn't actually exist; it's just a word made
>> >> > up by white saviors that is roundly rejected by the vast majority
>> >> > of latinos, who find it offensive.)
>> >> >
>> >> > Since the criteria is "identifies as", if I was a white Liberty Mutual
>> >> > employee, I'd just start identifying as black and show up for the
>> >> > training and enjoy the progs' sputtering reaction.
>> >> >
>> >> Hey, it worked for Rachel Dolezal at the NAACP, at least for a while.
>> >> And look at all the benefits that accrued to Sen. "Cheekbones" Warren....
>> >>
>> >> I remember reading a comment on an article where a guy mentioned that
>> >> his co-worker was a white man born in South Africa who was now a
>> >> naturalized American. When asked to fill out HR forms, he inevitably
>> >> ticked "African-American" which apparently greatly frustrated the HR
>> >> people because that wasn't what THEY meant by "African-American" but it
>> >> was technically correct so they couldn't stop him from doing it.
>> >
>> >I've posted this before:
>> >
>> >Back when I was in college, we had a student cause all sorts of
>> >liberal-proggie angst when she applied for one of the university's
>> >African-American scholarships.
>> >
>> >Problem was, she was as blonde, blue-eyed, and white as Kristen Bell.
>> >
>> >But you see, she was born of American diplomats living in South Africa,
>> >so she had dual citizenship. She literally was African-American.
>> >
>> >Of course the school denied her, saying, "But... but.. but... that's not
>> >what we meant! We meant "black", but since we can't say "black", we had
>> >to use the PC-approved term."
>> >
>> >She ended up suing the school and the court ruled in her favor, telling
>> >the university that if they meant "black", they should have said "black"
>> >and as there was no actual requirement anywhere in the scholarship
>> >eligibility requirements other than the student be "African-American",
>> >the girl met the qualifications.
>> >
>> >So many progs' heads exploded on campus that day, it was like the 4th of
>> >July. I remember it fondly..
>>
>> As expected a Google search for "South African girl sueda college claiming
>> she was African American" turned up exactly zero hits.
>
>Probably because neither Google (nor anyone else) knows what 'sueda'
>means, Hutt you galumphing worm.

Yeah we all know you don't have much of a background in science so you don't
know how the f*** AI works. Google can anticipate from the syntax of a
sentence what you're saying. So yeah that's a typo, a typo that Google
introduced actually but they can still figure out what's trying to be said.
That's why I got results. So what you have to say is total b******* as
usual. What new. And just a deflection of course because you have no proof
because you're f****** lying like you usually do. Just a f****** stupid
filthy liar. Hope this helps.

--
This space for rent.

On 8/17/23 5:26 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 8/17/23 5:43 PM, Trotsky wrote:
>> AwwOn 8/17/23 1:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <ubl272$3ka51$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-08-16 9:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Liberty Mutual Insurance is documented using an executive training
>>>> program
>>>> > that specifically prohibits white people from participating:
>>>> > >
>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wtt0rnchn4g6a1i2e6nm3/Liberty.png?rlkey=jp7us
>>>> > pk3mfox4ub82v3jjolo9&dl=0
>>>> > > This seems like a bright-line violation of the Civil Rights Act
>>>> and many > other EEOC rules and regulations. But it's in service to
>>>> woke
>>>> > 'progressivism', so the odds that the Biden DOJ will even consider an
>>>> > investigation are slim to none.
>>>> > > It is interesting that the criteria for participation specifies
>>>> employees > who "identify as Asian, black, or latinx". Not that they
>>>> have to *be*
>>>> > Asian, black, or latinx, just that they identify as such. (Even
>>>> though
>>>> > "latinks" doesn't actually exist; it's just a word made up by white
>>>> > saviors that is roundly rejected by the vast majority of latinos, who
>>>> > find it offensive.)
>>>> > > Since the criteria is "identifies as", if I was a white Liberty
>>>> Mutual
>>>> > employee, I'd just start identifying as black and show up for the
>>>> training > and enjoy the progs' sputtering reaction.
>>>> > Hey, it worked for Rachel Dolezal at the NAACP, at least for a
>>>> while. And look at all the benefits that accrued to Sen.
>>>> "Cheekbones" Warren....
>>>>
>>>> I remember reading a comment on an article where a guy mentioned
>>>> that his co-worker was a white man born in South Africa who was now
>>>> a naturalized American. When asked to fill out HR forms, he
>>>> inevitably ticked "African-American" which apparently greatly
>>>> frustrated the HR people because that wasn't what THEY meant by
>>>> "African-American" but it was technically correct so they couldn't
>>>> stop him from doing it.
>>>
>>> I've posted this before:
>>>
>>> Back when I was in college, we had a student cause all sorts of
>>> liberal-proggie angst when she applied for one of the university's
>>> African-American scholarships.
>>>
>>> Problem was, she was as blonde, blue-eyed, and white as Kristen Bell.
>>>
>>> But you see, she was born of American diplomats living in South
>>> Africa, so she had dual citizenship. She literally was African-American.
>>>
>>> Of course the school denied her, saying, "But... but.. but... that's
>>> not what we meant! We meant "black", but since we can't say "black",
>>> we had to use the PC-approved term."
>>>
>>> She ended up suing the school and the court ruled in her favor,
>>> telling the university that if they meant "black", they should have
>>> said "black" and as there was no actual requirement anywhere in the
>>> scholarship eligibility requirements other than the student be
>>> "African-American", the girl met the qualifications.
>>>
>>> So many progs' heads exploded on campus that day, it was like the 4th
>>> of July. I remember it fondly..
>>
>>
>> And you don't have a site for this fake f****** story either Is that
>> correct? Of course it is.
>>
>>
>
> That's why there are different categories used by the government.
> There's African-American and Black African-American.  It's to denote
> those with black heritage from those who are whites.
>
> But a moron won't just say that... they prefer to look for nits.

I hadn't heard this before but it makes perfect sense. For all we know
though Twat's "anecdote" came from roughly the same time frame as "Happy
Days." And like "Happy Days" Twat is known for having jumped the shark too.

In article <ubm76a$3qbdk$3@dont-email.me>, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

> On 2023-08-17 2:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <ubl272$3ka51$2@dont-email.me>,
> > Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2023-08-16 9:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> >>> Liberty Mutual Insurance is documented using an executive training program
> >>> that specifically prohibits white people from participating:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wtt0rnchn4g6a1i2e6nm3/Liberty.png?rlkey=jp7
> >>> us
> >>> pk3mfox4ub82v3jjolo9&dl=0
> >>>
> >>> This seems like a bright-line violation of the Civil Rights Act and many
> >>> other EEOC rules and regulations. But it's in service to woke
> >>> 'progressivism', so the odds that the Biden DOJ will even consider an
> >>> investigation are slim to none.
> >>>
> >>> It is interesting that the criteria for participation specifies employees
> >>> who "identify as Asian, black, or latinx". Not that they have to *be*
> >>> Asian, black, or latinx, just that they identify as such. (Even though
> >>> "latinks" doesn't actually exist; it's just a word made up by white
> >>> saviors that is roundly rejected by the vast majority of latinos, who
> >>> find it offensive.)
> >>>
> >>> Since the criteria is "identifies as", if I was a white Liberty Mutual
> >>> employee, I'd just start identifying as black and show up for the training
> >>> and enjoy the progs' sputtering reaction.
> >>>
> >> Hey, it worked for Rachel Dolezal at the NAACP, at least for a while.
> >> And look at all the benefits that accrued to Sen. "Cheekbones" Warren....
> >>
> >> I remember reading a comment on an article where a guy mentioned that
> >> his co-worker was a white man born in South Africa who was now a
> >> naturalized American. When asked to fill out HR forms, he inevitably
> >> ticked "African-American" which apparently greatly frustrated the HR
> >> people because that wasn't what THEY meant by "African-American" but it
> >> was technically correct so they couldn't stop him from doing it.
> >
> > I've posted this before:
> >
> > Back when I was in college, we had a student cause all sorts of
> > liberal-proggie angst when she applied for one of the university's
> > African-American scholarships.
> >
> > Problem was, she was as blonde, blue-eyed, and white as Kristen Bell.
> >
> > But you see, she was born of American diplomats living in South Africa,
> > so she had dual citizenship. She literally was African-American.
> >
> > Of course the school denied her, saying, "But... but.. but... that's not
> > what we meant! We meant "black", but since we can't say "black", we had
> > to use the PC-approved term."
> >
> > She ended up suing the school and the court ruled in her favor, telling
> > the university that if they meant "black", they should have said "black"
> > and as there was no actual requirement anywhere in the scholarship
> > eligibility requirements other than the student be "African-American",
> > the girl met the qualifications.
> >
> > So many progs' heads exploded on campus that day, it was like the 4th of
> > July. I remember it fondly..
>
> Too bad there's no video of the administrators reacting to the ruling;
> I'd love to see that!

I'm sure somebody's made a student film that dramatizes this bullshit
story since I first heard it while I was in college ca. 1971.

atropos@mac.com wrote:
> Trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>> On 8/17/23 1:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>In article <ubl272$3ka51$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>>> Hey, it worked for Rachel Dolezal at the NAACP, at least for a while.
>>>> And look at all the benefits that accrued to Sen. "Cheekbones" Warren...
>>>>
>>>> I remember reading a comment on an article where a guy mentioned that
>>>> his co-worker was a white man born in South Africa who was now a
>>>> naturalized American. When asked to fill out HR forms, he inevitably
>>>> ticked "African-American" which apparently greatly frustrated the HR
>>>> people because that wasn't what THEY meant by "African-American" but it
>>>> was technically correct so they couldn't stop him from doing it.
>>>
>>>I've posted this before:
>>>
>>>Back when I was in college, we had a student cause all sorts of
>>>liberal-proggie angst when she applied for one of the university's
>>>African-American scholarships.
>>>
>>>Problem was, she was as blonde, blue-eyed, and white as Kristen Bell.
>>>
>>>But you see, she was born of American diplomats living in South Africa,
>>>so she had dual citizenship. She literally was African-American.
>>>
>>>Of course the school denied her, saying, "But... but.. but... that's not
>>>what we meant! We meant "black", but since we can't say "black", we had
>>>to use the PC-approved term."
>>>
>>>She ended up suing the school and the court ruled in her favor, telling
>>>the university that if they meant "black", they should have said "black"
>>>and as there was no actual requirement anywhere in the scholarship
>>>eligibility requirements other than the student be "African-American",
>>>the girl met the qualifications.
>>>
>>>So many progs' heads exploded on campus that day, it was like the 4th of
>>>July. I remember it fondly..
>>
>> As expected a Google search for "South African girl sueda college claiming
>> she was African American" turned up exactly zero hits.
>
>Probably because neither Google (nor anyone else) knows what 'sueda'
>means, Hutt you galumphing worm.

Funny how "trotsky" becomes incompetent whenever he loses a debate, ammirite?

One would think he'd be over being a sore looser by now.

--
Let's go Brandon!