#rsrh The Great Berkeley Affirmative Action Bake-Sale Brouhaha.

There’s just something about an affirmative action bake sale that drives the progressive Left nuts.  Actually, sorry, I know perfectly well why affirmative action bake sales drive the progressive Left nuts:

  • The basic concept – that you sell people baked goods on a sliding price scale, with white males paying the most and [INSERT TRENDIEST MINORITY STATUS HERE] paying the least – provides an immediate, practical analogy for people arguing against affirmative action programs.
  • It’s not that it’s hard to argue that affirmative action bake sales are subtly racist while affirmative action academic/hiring programs are not; it’s that it’s hard to argue that without looking like a partisan schmuck to anybody who isn’t a diehard liberal already.
  • And, most importantly: the progressive Left cannot stand not being taken seriously.  That affirmative action programs deserve not fury, but merely mockery, burns the netroots.  It burns them like acid.

Anyway, read the above linked Zombietime article.  The aforementioned bake sale was at Berkeley, so expect the opposition to it to be full of both bad language and Commies.

Via Instapundit.

Moe Lane

 

3 thoughts on “#rsrh The Great Berkeley Affirmative Action Bake-Sale Brouhaha.”

  1. I’m still not sure what they were so upset about. They got a discount and the cupcakes looked pretty good.

  2. I had to chuckle when the article started “The U.C. Berkeley College Republicans” because I was thinking, “What, both of them?”. But maybe since the CR are the counter-culture there now, they attract more.

    As far as arguing it, the argument goes something like:

    1. Affirmative action helps needful minorities.
    2. Only racists are opposed to helping needful minorities.
    3. The bake sale was done by people opposed to affirmative action.
    4. Therefore the bake sale was racist.

    Liberals, on hearing this syllogism, will nod along. Many mushy moderates will do so as well, and it’s a tricky thing to argue against because 1 is arguably not true, in several respects, but is axiomatic to the left. But when the left goes full-metal-gibbering-foul-mouthed-a-hole in response, rather than making this argument, it pretty neatly undermines them.

Comments are closed.