California ‘Yes Means Yes’ Law

Calif. Colleges

At the end of September, California passed legislation defining when “yes means yes” on college campuses that covers sexual consent and domestic violence.  The state Senate unanimously approved the legislation and Gov. Jerry Brown announced that he had signed the bill.

The law requires colleges that receive state funding to have policies covering more than a dozen situations that can arise in sexual assault or domestic violence cases, from protecting privacy to training campus officials and providing counseling for victims.

“Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent,” the law states, “nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.”

Rather than using the refrain “no means no,” the definition of consent under the bill requires “an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision” by each party to engage in sexual activity.

The proposal requires all colleges taking student financial aid funding from the state to agree that in investigations of campus sexual assaults, silence or lack of resistance does not imply a green light for sex, and that drunkenness is not an acceptable defense, the San Jose Mercury-News reported earlier in August.

“With this measure, we will lead the nation in bringing standards and protocols across the board so we can create an environment that’s healthy, that’s conducive for all students, not just for women, but for young men as well too, so young men can develop healthy patterns and boundaries as they age with the opposite sex,” said Sen. Kevin de Leon of Los Angeles, who pushed for the legislation.

There were differing opinions.  “It is tragically clear that this campus rape crusade bill presumes the veracity of accusers (a.k.a. ‘survivors’) and likewise presumes the guilt of accused (virtually all men). This is nice for the accusers – both false accusers as well as true accusers — but what about the due process rights of the accused?,” wrote Gordon Finley, professor emeritus of psychology at Florida International University.

Advocates for victims of sexual assault supported the change as providing consistency across campuses and challenge the notion that victims must have resisted assault in order to have valid complaints.

“It does change the cultural perception of what rape is,” Sofie Karasek, an activist who sought changes in how the University of California-Berkeley handles such cases, told the Mecury-News. “There’s this pervasive idea that if it’s not super violent then it doesn’t really count.”

The California State University and University of California systems supported the legislation after adopting similar consent standards this year.  The law also requires colleges and universities to adopt “victim-centered” sexual-assault response policies and implement comprehensive programs to prevent assault.

“If the governor signs it, this will lead the entire country, the nation,” de Leon said, prior to the signing of the bill.  “It’s very difficult to say no when you’re inebriated or someone slips something into your drink.”

Rolling Stone Article On UVA Rape

Rolling stone has a new article about rape culture at the University of Virginia entitled “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA.”

It is a brutal account of UVA fratboy rape culture.

You can find the article here:

What Is Hipster Racism?

Rock group 30 Seconds To Mars with headdresses

The website Dispatches From The Underclass states:

The term “hipster racism” was coined by Carmen Van Kerckhove at Racialicious and refers to using racist language “ironically”.

STFU Hipster defines Hipster Racism in this way:

“Hipster racism involves making derogatory comments with a racial basis in an attempt to seem witty and above it all. Specifically, the idea is to sound ironic, as in ‘I’m allowed to say this because of course I’m not racist, so it’s funny.’

“It’s an aspect of a larger part of the hipster culture, which wants to seem jaded and urbane and oh-so-witty. Using language which is viewed as inflammatory or not appropriate is supposed to push the boundaries and make someone look edgy, but it only really comes across that way to people who buy into that system. To everyone else, it’s just racist.”

Wikipedia gives background to Hipster Racism:

“Van Kerckhove first attributed the term hipster racism in an article, ‘The 10 biggest race and pop culture trends of 2006’, particularly citing ‘Kill Whitie’ Parties and ‘Blackface Jesus’ as prominent examples of what she claimed to be the height of hipster racism.

“‘Kill Whitie’ parties, as described by the Washington Post, were parties held for hipsters in Williamsburg, Brooklyn by Jeremy Parker, a DJ that goes by the name of The Pumpsta, in an attempt to ‘kill the whiteness inside’.

“These were parties in which white hipsters attempted to discard their white privilege by mocking the black hip-hop industry, and essentially a part of black culture, for the sake of irony.

“Another occasion Van Kerckhove regarded as an instance of hipster racism was the use of blackface by white people and the normalization and acceptance of such use from other individuals. The use of blackface by individuals such as these was in an effort to satirize political correctness and racism.

“Other instances of alleged hipster racism include the appropriation of cultural artifacts by hipsters, which involves individuals adopting certain cultural artifacts of another culture without recognizing the significance of said article.  Examples include wearing native headdresses, or more specifically, Urban Outfitters selling clothes with Navajo and other Aboriginal and African tribal prints without giving tribute, acknowledgement, or compensation.”

So, the real question should be:  Is “hipster racism” just “racism?”  Are neo-Nazis and KKK hipster racism or just “racism?”  What about blackface?

What do you think?

For an example of Hipster Racism, go to this website:

Bill O’Reilly And The Reality Of Asian Americans

Reality sometimes comes back to hit Bill O’Reilly.

For example, he pushes a military agenda in regards to the Middle East, yet he was never in the military.

More recently, he denies claims of “white privilege” and used Asian Americans to justify his point.  “If there is white privilege, then there has to be Asian privilege, because Asians make more money than whites…,” he pointed out to John Stewart.

That may be true.

However, it is also worth mentioning that 73% of Asian American voters cast a ballot for President Obama against Mitt Romney in 2012.

What happens when O’Reilly actually talks with Asians?

Last year, O’Reilly sent producer Jesse Watters to Hawaii to report on why the Aloha State is so liberal. Following the report, O’Reilly admitted his surprise with how Democratic the state is, because “Asians people aren’t liberal by nature” due to their being “more industrious and hard-working.” O’Reilly’s comments drew the attention and condemnation of Democratic Hawaii congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa, who appeared on O’Reilly’s program.

Hanabusa told O’Reilly she was very bothered by his commentary, saying that Asian residents of Hawaii, like the rest, value their elders and communities.

O’Reilly confronted Hanabusa over whether she had, in fact, seen the full segment on his program.

They also discussed the state’s unemployment rate and the people on food stamps. He also cited the drug problem in Hawaii as another result of the state’s “liberal culture.” Hanabusa disputed O’Reilly’s claims about drug use, though she did admit there is a drug problem in her state – as in any state – that she is trying to crack down on.

Hanabusa called him out on his Asian commentary, saying:

“When you characterize us in Hawaii, be aware that you’re talking about a culture, a people who have managed to live together and work together… You are offensive to Asians. By making that statement, you are offensive to all of us who are Asian. We are not one kind of person. We want you to recognize that we are different.”

To this day, it is the opinion of this website that herein lies the reason that Fox News “interviews” its own people – contributors, analysts, and other hosts.

When Fox News interviews people from outside of the “Fox bubble,”  the interviews simply don’t go as expected.

Take a look the local news coverage of another O’Reilly segment on Hawaii.