FEMA Holds Employee Trainings on ‘White Supremacy’ As More Than 1,000 Hawaiians Remain Missing

Quite the broad brush you're painting with there. The only ones that thought that are the extreme of extremists, not the general. Do you like it when those on the right paint the left in broad brush strokes? Of course not.

 

I guess I'm just not easily offended, and I see that as a good thing. I've had my own employers conduct sexual harassments training at my work place, which touched on other subjects of diversity and equity, but it was a very brief overview overall.

I would agree, white supremacists make up a very small portion of the general populous, but I also don't know how much of the three hour diversity training was focused on white supremacy.

 

FEMA is indoctrinating its employees with the rationale for the camps by demonizing White people.

 

How does something like this even guy by the adults in the room if there ARE any still left in DC and not all these spoon fed racist and bigoted leftist putting out this garbage?

 

And it applies to all us white people.

I heard people being interviewed in DC this weekend for the MLK speech event. They actaully believe we have come hardly ANYWHERE from the Dem Jim Crow era, there has been little in any advancement and we have LONG was to go so little has changed.

The absurdity of those beliefs but THAT is what is being indoctrinated into people and that is being led by the leftist in our government and in our schools. And THAT is what is dividing this country and holding back the black community not this whisper in the night WHITE SUPREMIST they claim are taking over yet can even get a couple of dozen of the white supremist people to show up at their rally's.

Tell me if you looked around tomorrow and said that MLK's dream had been met what would be different, how would that manifest itself that would make things different?

 

It is not a focus. It may last one hour and it is usually done using Computer Based Training programs. That's it. But diversity training is not the only one. When I worked for federal government, I have five such subjects. They include: UNAX, IT Security, IRS major law updates and procedures, Diversity, and Sexual Harrassment in the workplace. It was allowed one day, no matter what your job title was or all five of these. There were others as well from time to time, also depending on what your job title is.

However, OPM does list the mandatory training that federal employees must take each year. They include:

1. No Fear Act, this is the sexual harrassment training.
2. Ethics Awareness
3. IT Security Awareness
   
4. Equal Employment Opportunity
5. The Constitution
6. OSHA training, or Occupational and Safety Training
7. Performance Management
8. Plain Writing Act.

There may be more depending on the department or agency in their specific duties as determined by the head of that agency or department.

 

So your job is get to a location of a national disaster as quickly as possible and get aid to desperate people as quickly as possible but you have time that is not urgent you can take a day to listen to how whites are all white supremist especially Christian white males and because of that white supremacy is EVERYWHERE?

So since I AM NOT a white supremist I should go to great lengths to declare it is everywhere and play it up and not act outraged when the government declares me one because I am a white male and should not get super defensive if someone accuses me of being a white supremist. Using your theory of how to identify a white supremist I would say there are LOTS. What if I say you are a white supremist and you say you are not does that make you one because we know a real white supremist would say they are not.

 

This is the most insidious part of what the OP presents. There is only 3 ways for this to be true.

1: There has to be laws and rules in "nearly" every system and institution in the US that targets people based on skin color, specifically targets POC while treating white people as being above the laws/rules. Currently we only have 1 law that talks about skin color. And that one is supposed to be about making sure that no one of XYZ skin color is treated differently from any other XYZ skin color. Though the effects of it in how its implemented actually cause people of differing skin colors to be treated differently, more often than not it actually raises POC above white people. Beyond that, there isn't a single law or rule that anyone can point to that targets XYZ skin color. Because of this there is only one other way for it to be true.

2: Every white person in "nearly" every system and institution in the US has to be racist. This is shown to be false simply by believing Democrats. They're not racist, but Republicans are. Per Gallup as of Jan 17 2022 on average 46% of voting adults in the US are or lean towards the Democratic Party while 43% are or lean towards the Republican Party. That alone shows that every white person in "nearly" every system and institution in the US is not, cannot, be racist. Simply by believing Democrats on how they view themselves vs Republicans. In order for it to be true, Democrats would have to change their narrative to admitting that they are racist. Which of course they're not going to do. If however, we deal with reality, the vast majority of white people are not racist. That still makes the above pic incorrect. But its still being "taught" as if it's true.

3: The third is simply a combination of the above two. Which is exactly what the above pic wants you to believe. That both are simultaneously true. That all laws and rules in "nearly" every institution of the US are racist and all white people are racist.

The link for the reference in #2: U.S. Political Party Preferences Shifted Greatly During 2021 (gallup.com)

 

It is not a question of one or the other. It is a question of what is hitting the news more often than others. We just had another racist, at least that is what the police are calling it, attack at a local grocery store, I think Dollar General, famous for its southern roots in which three black people were killed and I think a couple was wounded. The perpetrator left messages, a manifesto, and other evidence indicating his intentions very easy for the police to find. We have had this happen quite a bit in the last few years. And in the early 2010s, we had the same thing where people attacked gay establishments or gay people as well. And I am sure that the diversity training programs dealt with this. Even when I had to do my No Fear Act, the training that teaches you what to say and do vs not to say and do for sexual misconduct in the workplace even used gay and lesbian scenarios to teach the topic.

Second, I read the slides, assuming they are the slides that were presented and not photoshopped at all, from a conservative website. So, the source is not exactly trustworthy. I have not dealt with the actual slides if they are photoshopped or not. And I will ask some of my colleagues if they had the training if that is what the slides actually said. If they were the actual slides, then we have another issue. This information is considered sensitive information not available to the public and a violation of certain protocols and procedures. Government computers are very good, if not damn near perfect, where every keystroke is recorded on that government computer or laptop. You need to sign in so that you can take the training on the Government Training site.

And if you read the article entirely, the object of the article is not that FEMA is not helping to find people, it is the overall conservative cultural war that the far right has constantly been beating its drum on since the 1990s.

 

Assuming that is actually what they said. The article never said where it got the information or how, not even a FOIA request, which I find highly doubtful. And if you look at the "screen capture" of said email, where there is no sender or any other identification information, nothing in the email matches to what the article is implying. Below is that screen capture that FreeBacon used:

 

I am not fixing problems, just showing you the cultural differences between Asian people and others like you. If you would pay attention once in your GD life, you might learn something for once. Again, I gave that example to test you, you failed on two counts: you ignored the question I asked and you went off on a completely different tangent hoping everyone things as you do.

Liberalism is not a disease. It is a different point of view. And different points of view is what makes life interesting. But you never defined "liberalism, did you?" How much do you want to make a bet that you are a liberal when it comes to trade?\

As for capitalism, there are many different permentations of capitalism. I don't think you know any of them and only going off basic HS teaching concepts.

In some ways, we are a collectivist society, especially at the community level. If the community does not want any fast food restaurants or AirBNB places, it will do so with petitions, and present them to the city council, along with electing people who have their viewpoints to begin with. But that is the extent of it, at least locally.

 

Because with out you and other liberals, you dont think anybody can figure out the differences? This is precisely the arrogance I speak of.

It isn't about educating from your ivory tower, it's about imposing you view that the collective should perceive other cultures a certain way.

That, without you and other liberals, there would be lynchings in the steets. A genocide.

Which again, is severely ironic considering there IS a genocide ongoing between blacks, but that's easily ignored to dictate to other people and fix your perceptions of their ignorance?

Ah, and now the arrogance of lecturing. We should all be ever thankful we have you to save everybody from themselves. Without you and other liberals, the streets would run with blood. /sarcasm

Oh my, the absolute arrogance. Looks bub, I have absolutley NOTHING to learn from you.

You think very highly of your opinions. I get that.

LMAO

I failed your "test". Lol

Honestly, the arrogance is almost incomprehensible.

Your "questions" are always loaded with your opinions presented as facts. That we must accept your truths and then only is our response acceptable.

Is this serious? Is this for real?

I'm liberal in lots of things. I'm conservative in many. In neither liberal nor conservative.

When i say liberalism, i usually qualify that as liberal PROGRESSIVISM which is absolutley a diaease.

Haha. Ok

Psst. I have multiple post graduate degrees and was a professor as well as run my own private firm.

These little comments don't impress me.

Finally something to debate.

If they don't want fast food restaurants.... don't go to them. They will close.

But that's for proving my point about collectivism.

In the example, you didn't indicate letting other individuals decide if they wanted them. In the free market, the support for a business is if people spend money there and desire their product. This is the individualist approach.

But nope, you took collectivist approach, acting on behalf of everybody and preventing them from building the restaurants.

I couldn't have showcased my point any better than you did for me.

 

Heck of a job Brownie!

 

According to the article, it's a 3-hour module, and they have an 8 week window to complete it. You don't think they have 3 free hours over the course of 8 weeks? And if it's anything like the ones I've done, if you did it last year, you can just jump to the quiz.

Man, that sounds a little like how homophobes would act like gay couples getting married would mean the straight folk would have to also get married to a member of the same sex. I was talking about what I would do if I was a white supremacist. Not how to identify one. You know how another poster said they don't worry about this story or feel upset about it because they're not a white supremacist? Maybe folks feeling so wildly upset about this, or misreading/misunderstanding what other people here are saying would benefit from some introspection.

 

LOL, trying to make this about me is a desperate attempt to not only answer the simple question I asked but you replied you don't care. And yet here you are caring. So which is it. Not caring at all or caring enough but intentionally refusing because you don't want that "precioius little fake image of your here to be found out." Choice is yours girl.

As for lynching, that happened because people wanted the status quo. Blacks were to be in their place, behind the white man, and that was 19th century conservatism, not liberalism.

You stated "liberalism is a disease" and I disagreed with you. Pure and simple. That is not lecturing at all. If I were to lecture you, my post would have been 8000 words or more in an essay format replete with references, examples, and historical facts. But I did not do that. Again, your grasp of the English grammer is so poor that you cannot use the words to disagree with the topic that your brought up.

I am forceful in my opinions yes, but that is not arrogance, that is confidence and you need confidence when debating sometimes. You, OTOH, like to attack posters who directly challenge your opinions. And that is all they are and if you cannot defend your opinions in a debate, then not only are you not a good debater, you are simply regurgitating those statements blindly without even thinking.

A lot of things you do in life is a test. Sometimes they are announced. but most of the time they are not. Raising a child is a daily test on your part. A test on your patience and a test on your resolve. Or when debating and asking a question, it too is a test. A test to see how well you respond based on your assertions and logical thought processes. In other words, in what you are saying, have you really taken the time to fully understand what you say politically or are you just saying political things in order to get a reaction from other people? And that is the reason. We don't live in a homogeneous society where everyone has the same religion, the same customs, the same expectations, or even the same political viewpoints. And that is why I put two Asian women holding hands in a crowded mall. It was up to you to see that situation besides the "I don't care" fake argument you gave.

If that is your assumption, then you failed more miserably than you realize. The question was not loaded. It was simple, given a simple observation, and very few facts. It was up to you to interpret that situation based on what you know. I know because I have seen it plenty of times both here in the US and in Asian Countries that I visited without being overtly judgemental. And I think that is your downfall because you ae quietly judgemental by those who don't meet your political and personal expectations despite being a "libertarian" by words, not by actions.

And yet your whole premise is that "liberalism is a disease" lol. Those are your words, not mine.

Progressivism is not liberalism. That is pure hogwash of mashing two very political words with lots of meaning and context to try to make a political argument. It is clear that your education is from the internet, not books, not articles, not even a thought process. Just regurgitate what you see and read on the internet.

Today's progressivim is an idealogy where it meets the change. Historically, it mean to get rid of government corruption, the right of women to vote, the right of minorities to vote, improved child labor laws, and support for the worker for a better wage. And that still holds true today with the addition of climate change and trade policies changes in which we have "fair trade" and not free trade.

Economic liberalism is by definition capitalism and by extension free trade with as many countries as possible no matter if they are our adversaries or allies. Political conservatism is status quo, which mean no more rights given to other groups such as the LGBTQ or even immigrants. Modern Conervetaism believes that the US Constituiton is only for Americans.

So far, you have not proved you have multiple postgraduate degrees in this debate of ours. Not even close. You are making quotes as if you are a high school student with very judgemental attitude. Running a business is not something that is highly intellectual. Either you are very good at selling a product or service or you are very good at making a product. But owning a business also means you wear multiple hats and it is a daily try as you go routine with advertising, hiring if you can, financial management, and so forth. This is another desperate distraction on your part for not answering the question I asked and pretty much stating high school political dogma from the internet.

I take it you don't understand what city/town ordinance are, do you? And that was the point and how we are collectivist in local areas if the community as a whole does not want something. Plano, a suburban city of 250k and conservative is putting extreme limits on AirBNB places in the city because of a few issues with drunken parties, prostitutes, and so forth. And that is the piont.

For your comment, boycotts really don't work, do they? How many boycotts have really closed any business? None.

And if you want "individualism," then consider this: you are a small fish, I am a bigger fish, and in nature, the bigger fish always eat the smaller fish no matter what.

 

I think utilizing ordinances to determine which legal businesses to operate is absolutley a violation of free market principals.

It is the collectivism that you feel validated dictating appropriate or desired businesses or other policies.

why do you desire to dictate for everybody else using the strong arm of governemnt to do your bidding?

How can you possibly speak for the entirety of the community and every individual?

That's wrong.

If it's legal, then it should be allowed.

Are you familiar with the term "Karens"?

Anheiser Bush might disagree.

What does that have to do with dictating your opinions through force?

 

And that 3 hours becomes a day with the travel and breakfast and lunch and after class gathering I am sure the taxpayer is paying for when they hold the class.

Sounds nothing like anything to do with homosexuals.

Well must be ABLE TO identify with them if you believe you can accurately reflect of what they would do. But then I was not giving your an if I was talking in reality

And thus I asked. So since I AM NOT a white supremist I should go to great lengths to declare it is everywhere and play it up and not act outraged when the government declares me one? Because I am a white male I should not get super defensive if someone accuses me of being a white supremist?

Because according to you discounting it and being outraged when someone accuses you of being one is indicative of being a white supremist and I certainly don't want you projecting that on me.

Using your theory of how to identify a white supremist I would say there are LOTS. What if I say you are a white supremist and you say you are not does that indicate you are one because we know a real white supremist would say they are not?

 

Obviously, white supremacy is the biggest threat this great nation faces. Should really just start tracking all white Republicans. We dont need to bother with white democrats because they have had the correct cultural training.

 

Nothing good comes from DEI policy. Just allows unqualified people to work in Jobs they have no business being in. Merit and merit ONLY.

 

I'm not really sure how the DC interview is related, but keep in mind in terms of equality, the government has a tendency to progress slower than the private sector. I'll put it to you this way, Major League Baseball desegregated before the US military did, and they also never had a prohibition or "don't ask don't tell" rule on gay athletes. I don't necessarily find it to be a bad thing to teach government employees about this history as a part of their training. Learning from history does work as a deterrent for repeating it. I can't say I agree with the notion that things today are the same as they were back then, but that doesn't mean there isn't a valuable lesson in teaching about that history.

 

Ah, so you don't like democracy, do you? We have an ordinance where adult entertainment businesses cannot be within 1000 feet of schools or daycare centers. We have ordinances where We have ordinances that establish the limits of what can and cannot be served in restaurants. We have health inspections by local governments to make sure that those restaurants are clean for the general public to use. All of this is well within the State Constitution and the city charters. But this was demanded and voted on by the city council, which voters do elect. And that is called democracy. It is a representative democracy, but a democracy nonetheless. And that is how things work here in the US.

If you are living in a town or a city, is that not a collectivist society in your argument? We are not individual islands here, not even as a nation, which is a form of collectivism in your argument. And if the city or town passes ordinances, laws, in which we are to abide, is that not what a civilized society is. Or do you thnk you can be Jane, Tarzan's woman sort of thing here?

Whether it is legal or not will depend either on state legislatures passing laws, again a collectivist society in your argument, or the city/town that passes ordinances in what is and what is not legal.

Last time I checked, Anheiser Bush is alive and well, has not closed, not even close. Now they did lose about 25% of their markt value and about 5% in total sales, but that is about it. And the only thing they did was temporarily suspend two advertising directors because the ad did not go well. But we can look in comparison to Ford when it rolled out the Ford Edsel, probably the worst car ever produced in the US. And that nearly cost the company its pants because of that fiasco. Part of capitalism is how people react to ads. Sometimes it is a goldmine, and sometimes it is an abject failure. And most of the time it is in the middle. But that is what capitalism is to some degree regardless of who does the selling or what they look like.

I am surprised with your "multiple postgraduate degrees" you have not figured out that already. For starters, if you are an island amongst yourself, your individualism argument where there is no collectivism such as cities, towns, police, or whatever, then it is one individual against another. But not all individuals are created equal in money, thought, attitude, resolve, and so forth;. And if one individual pisses off another individual, then who is to stop them from doing what they can do?

 

LOL, so does this go both ways with you or is it only white people. The new granny off the cliff BS isn't working because normal people don't see any white supremacy, nor KKK, nor any white groups that attacks certain races but we do see other races attacking asians and whites quiet often because of their skin color. The bottom line the country has moved on for the better and all the left is doing is trying to reverse our progress for votes. It's really pathetic.

 

I'm not bothered by this at all.

Those missing people are not alive they are dead. They are not buried under rubble, this was not an earthquake. This was a fire. They all burned to death. All that's left are piles of charcoal.

 

Bingo. Meanwhile the nation's true # 1 crisis, white supremacy, needs to be addressed!

 

It's a training module. You just do it from your computer. At least that's what it sounded like from the article.

I meant the histrionic attitude.

Sure, I grew up in an all-white town near several Native American reservations. There were a lot of white supremacists around, and people whose language matched up with them, even if they didn't consider themselves to be white supremacists. I wouldn't say I identify with them, but it's pretty easy to know how they think when you spend 18 years around them.

Is the government calling you a white supremacist? Is the government in the room with you right now? That's what I was talking about with the gay marriage analogy. 10 years ago, you'd have a conversation with a homophobe about it and they'd immediately jump to "I'm not gay." No one was calling them gay. No one is calling you a white supremacist.

I honestly can't tell if you're blinded by rage or unable to read properly. I don't have a theory of how to identify a white supremacist. I was talking about what I would do if I were one, not how to identify one. Call me a white supremacist all you want. I'm not one, so I don't care. I don't let random people on the internet have power over me like that.