The group is "actually" pretty small? Hey, nice to have that settled. Meanwhile, have fun as one of the select few that takes Breitbart talking points seriously.

BillFranklin Correct, almost. They didn't say, "homo", either. They would end the sentence with the verbal equivalent of "....", while making an uncomfortable face. All things considered, including context, the meaning was clear.

If you were at college half a century ago, the word "gay" was unheard of. Probably the girls asked you if the guy was a "homo."

Aren't they freezing? Of course they are. Bad weather last summer. Mixed beach volleyball. Guys wearing board shorts and long-sleeved shirts. Girls in two-pieces. Walked out on the pier. Even brisker. Most people were wearing jackets and sweaters. Upon reaching the end of the pier, several young ladies dropped the coats to appear in two-piece swim suits. Even I, bulky and experienced with various kinds of weather, was cold directly, and vicariously. The only explanation was....OBJECTIFY US! NOW! WE'RE NOT PUTTING UP WITH THIS CRAP FOR NOTHING, YOU KNOW.

I don't get the "we" thing. He's speaking for himself and a hypothetical group. The group may well exist, but it's actually pretty small. The exception would be if you're so far inside that it's everywhere you look. I would suggest reading "This Kind of War" by Fehrenbach. It's about the Korean War and the place of a military in a liberal democracy, the place of limited wars in a nuclear-armed bipolar--or few-polar world. Keep in mind that Iraq was doing so well in 2010 that Biden claimed it would be a signature accomplishment of the Obama administration. But the SOFA failed--Obama didn't want it--and so here we are. That's not the fault of those who promoted the invasion of Iraq, although perhaps anticipating the reaction of democrats to victory once they get into power should be mandatory. As a matter of fact, it may seem that greater America doesn't care because, since 2008, according to the media, no US soldiers have died in combat. So why worry?

Somewhere, people are trying finesse an exception for "hate speech", aka an inconvenient argument.

The presumption is that the greedy, dollar-is-all powers that be would rather have fewer dollars as long as it means not having women in high positions. Conflcting memes there.

An affirmative action admit, by definition, is for a person not qualified by the previously agreed-upon standards. If they qualify, it's not affirmative action. Since slots are not infinite, the slot taken by an affirmative action admit is not available to another person, generally a white person whose qualifications are suitable. If the white person didn't qualify, the question wouldn't arise. Thus, the affirmative action admit is, by definition, unqualified to take the place of the qualified white person, but gets the slot anyway. Point is, everybody knows this, vague references to "not supposed to be' notwithstanding.

We have a chicken/egg thing. Why are the lousy teachers in the poor and minority schools? My daughter was a public high school teacher. The demographics changed, along with the admin and the admin's interest in supporting the teachers. After she was assaulted twice, she took a two-thirds pay cut to teach at a parochial school and sells jewelry on the side. According to her colleagues--some of whom were older and needed to remain to protect their retirement--the replacements for teachers who've left are suboptimal. The place is not working.

Tricky issue. Freedom of association and to make rules for the group is fundamental and, if the issue is correct, the Usual Suspects will gladly dismiss some Other or other. OTOH, if there's government funding, that's a problem. But, as Groucho Marx said, which is marginally applicable here, he wouldn't join a club that would have him. Keep in mind, bigotry is legal. There is no "allowing" or disallowing it. It's discrimination which is illegal. If these groups met off campus and had no connection with the U wrt money or official recognition, their rules would be legal, as they should be. You may deplore some people's use of freedom. But not too loudly. You might want to do it yourself sometime and you wouldn't want to have to defend your previous views.

When I was in college half a century ago, it was extraordinarily difficult to get a woman drunk. Not that it didn't happen, but things have changed. Some of the men's boards claim the women want to live on the wild side and use getting drunk as cover. Perhaps the getting drunk is seen as implied consent. One university administrator said "regret is rape". So, yeah, the lines are blurred. But, when i worked for the Dean of Students back in the day, some of the undergrads thought they should tell me stuff. No idea why. But one of the things I heard from several women was that the guy in question was a loser for not moving in on her. Or perhaps he was gay. Or a guy wondering what he'd done wrong by not moving. As a friend of mine said, without ambiguity, dating would be dull. Probably better to face it sober, though.

It doesn't take much to get on the wrong side of the SJW. A greater degree of certainty is hard to imagine. And "unfair" doesn't begin to describe it. And if you don't say something awful, they'll accuse you of it and act as if you did say it. Oh, well, feminism probably has its good points if you look long enough. I did want to bring something to your attention. Almost everybody who uses the term "swiftboating" knows that the guys were pretty much correct. It's not been debunked. For partisan purposes, though, it has been agreed to pretend it was all lles. It's not, as you know. But, the problem is, so does pretty much everybody else. Word to the wise.