Students Sign Petition To Ban "Offensive" Valentine's Day

Authored by Cabot Phillips via Campus Reform,.

This year, Campus Reform has reported how college campuses around the country have been forced to modify various holiday celebrations due to concerns over political correctness.

Whether it was warning students of cultural appropriation on Halloween, or restricting Christmas celebrations for fear of offending non-Christians on campus, universities have become increasingly fearful of allowing “offensive” holiday celebrations.

But what about a seemingly harmless, non- (or at best quasi-) religious holiday like Valentine’s Day? While most universities have yet to take action against the day, would students be willing to outlaw it if they felt their peers were offended by the celebration?

To find out, Campus Reform went undercover at Cornell University, armed with a fictitious petition to ban Valentine’s Day, on the grounds that it was simply too offensive to students without a romantic partner.

It quickly became clear that students at Cornell were more than willing to go along with any measure that would supposedly make campus a more inclusive space.

“That’s a really nice petition,” said one student, while another admitted “I’m in a relationship, but I totally understand.”

One student condemned the school’s handling of the holiday in the past, saying

“I would also point out the administration is really heteronormative about [Valentine’s Day] which is kinda f***** up.”

One student went so far as to ask for our contact information, so they could share the fabricated petition online to gain more supporters.

What else did they have to say about the idea of outlawing Valentine’s Day? Watch the full video to find out:


ThorAss bobbbny Wed, 02/14/2018 - 18:20 Permalink

Wrongo! Their numbers increase not by reproduction but by mode conversion. At some point it will be considered to be abnormal, nay a perversion to be completely heterosexual. At least in some peer groups. Then the ones batting left-handed can have kids the new way or adopt Chinese girl babies. These can then be raised by their dads (or their mums), or whatever the hell they're called to be "open-minded", and the whole shitshow gets raised to another level. You are dreaming if you think generationally speaking this is one and done because it ain't. Now that marriage has been "redefined" as has gender, there is little to stop things that even 20 years ago would have been considered child abuse. Welcome to utopia, please try to be "inclusive."

In reply to by bobbbny

cornflakesdisease BLOTTO Wed, 02/14/2018 - 18:02 Permalink

These holidays; Halloween, Christmas, Valentines, are rooted in pagan customs and ideology.  Jesus and the first century Christians would have never supported any of these things.  Goodness, Paul was quite possible saved from being throw to the lions because he turned so many people away from worshiping the love / fertility god Ar′te·mis (the Greek precursor to Eros) that he was nearly killed in Ephesus by the silversmith's because it cut into their idol business badly.  Ac 19:33, 34.  Yet sadly you, now claiming to be a "Christian" defend this false belief and satanic garbage.  Truly sad.


In reply to by BLOTTO

bluez ThorAss Wed, 02/14/2018 - 18:48 Permalink

Me and my gang and including the women all despised "Valentine's Day". If I were to actually give a girl one of those stupid chocolate hearts I would have got a kick in the nuts for it. "Valentine's Day" is only really relevant to kids of about 18 years old. But it is imposed by the tyrannical adults who we all hated, especially our parents and teachers who were always trying to boss us around. What a bunch of dumb squares.

In reply to by ThorAss

Eyes Opened ThorAss Thu, 02/15/2018 - 03:14 Permalink

The money I "invested" over the years on girls back in the good ol' days of 2 genders only...😔

Lets just say my ROI was not what I had hoped for... 😒

Anyhoo, apart from the slim possibility of sex (we're talkin catholic Ireland 1980s) I don't recall us guys recieving ANY benefits...

How 'bout a special day where the guys get showered with love & attention ??  I know, I know... thats crazy talk... 😅 

In reply to by ThorAss

NumbersUsa DownWithYogaPants Wed, 02/14/2018 - 20:43 Permalink

This proposed Ban is a direct result of the jew supremacist hatred of Christ and anything to do with him. The jew supremacists effectively control America as we know it !

We the people of the United States of America: Demand the immediate expulsion of all dual citizen israelis elected to, employed by and volunteering for any and all Federal, State, & Local Governments- NOW !

Also we Demand that a U.S.A. Version of the Nurenberg laws be passed and enforced immediately-NOW !

We also Demand that all Foreign Agent jew supremacist organizations be prosecuted & shutdown immediately under the FARA Act- Now! Short list includes: Aipac, Zoa, Splc, Aclu, Adl, Jwc, Jdl, Cfr... etc... 


In reply to by DownWithYogaPants

Baron Samedi American Psycho Wed, 02/14/2018 - 21:25 Permalink

I have heard that the observable incidence of all of LGBTqrxyz ... is at/under a few percent. So I'm gonna start asking these pathetic bastards to prefix all of their wailings with these numbers so people can see the effects of MSM social/memetic engineering; that it's really down in the noise - where it should be left.  Accepted - yes; amplified/lionized/weaponized - NO!



In reply to by American Psycho

any_mouse I woke up Wed, 02/14/2018 - 17:12 Permalink

I'd rather they wanted to ban VD because it's a fake day to celebrate consumerism.

For Men, every Valentine's Day is a massacre.

Best VD ad ever, seen once and only once. Daddy and loli daughter are wrapping a diamond something or other for Mommy. Daughter asks Daddy, when do you get your present? Daddy replies, "Daddy will get his later."

In reply to by I woke up

ParkAveFlasher buzzsaw99 Wed, 02/14/2018 - 17:25 Permalink

Notice how all the hallmark movies involve an English prince selecting from humble stock for his seed-sowing.  The truth is not even funny.

The goal is to normalize sexuality on a socially-guided and media-pressured target-setting basis - rather than allowing God's natural course of fertility, starting in early adulthood, catalyzing the robust proliferation of humanity across the face of the earth.

You screw when I tell you to screw, says the oppressor.

In reply to by buzzsaw99

Retired Guy buzzsaw99 Wed, 02/14/2018 - 18:45 Permalink

Some people enjoy romance, red hearts and getting laid. How is it okay to ban someone's fun just because you don't want to participate? Isn't that a micro-aggression or something?

Some on this board blame boomers for the stupid instruction offered at schools. I was involved in the accounting biz and had no idea what evil was brewing at the college of education. Don't blame all boomers for the socialist take over of education.

In reply to by buzzsaw99

Not Too Important JonNadler Wed, 02/14/2018 - 17:51 Permalink

'Heteronormative'? Is that all you got?

How about 'Black Anality'?

“Black Anality” argues that “black” and “anal” are rendered ideologically, discursively, and representationally synonymous, and that black female flesh becomes the material space on which this convergence occurs. Drawing on an archive of online, widely accessible black pornographies, I develop the term black anality to describe how black pleasures are represented as peculiarly and particularly oriented toward the anus, and thus as peculiarly and particularly attached to anal ideologies. In doing so, I depart from black feminist scholarship, which has long examined the buttocks as an imagined locus of racial-sexual difference and which has developed a set of analytics that now predominate in the study of black female sexualities: spectacularity, excess, grotesquerie, and display. “Black Anality” offers a new set of analytics for black feminist work on sexuality: spatiality, waste, toxicity, and filth. These analytics, I argue, allow black feminists to consider how black female sexuality is imagined to be rooted in (and perhaps generative of) certain kinds of filthy spaces, particularly the ghetto; how black sexuality is constructed as literally and metaphorically dirty; how black sexuality is posited as toxic, non-productive, and nonreproductive; and how black sexuality is imagined as wasteful. In turning attention to this understudied and overdetermining space — the black anus — “Black Anality” considers the racial meanings produced in pornographic texts that insistently return to the black female anus as a critical site of pleasure, peril, and curiosity."

This is what a $140,000 education gets you.

In reply to by JonNadler

New_Meat Not Too Important Wed, 02/14/2018 - 18:09 Permalink

Some repressive bunch of no-fun prigs took on a campaign against "Black Anality" in Uganda and more or less stopped the "wasting disease" because they were persuasive.

The "wasting disease" also is common among certain groups in the Western tradition who practice "Anality" since they are not allowed to examine the colour of the ... er ... recipient.  This disease has markedly more effect upon the lifetime prospects of its practitioners than does smoking or driving while impaired.

But not to worry, the practitioners are in no respect "hetero-normative."

In reply to by Not Too Important

Not Too Important land_of_the_few Wed, 02/14/2018 - 17:54 Permalink

It started in the early 1900's:


"In the early 20th century both the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations were donating large sums of money to education and the social sciences. They supported, in particular, the National Education Association. By way of grants, they spent millions of dollars, money which was used to radically bend the traditionalist education system toward a new system that favored standardized testing over critical thinking, toward “scientific management” in schools. This was part of a calculated plan to make the schooling system benefit corporate America, at the expense of the American school child. Powerful foundations with private interests, such as the Ford Foundation, continue to support, and thereby influence the policy of, the NEA to this day.

Additionally, an unprecedented U.S. Congressional investigation into tax-exempt foundations identified the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations engagement in an agenda for vast population control. Norman Dodd, Research Director for the Congressional Committee, found this statement in the archives of the Carnegie endowment:

“The only way to maintain control of the population was to obtain control of education in the U.S. They realized this was a prodigious task so they approached the Rockefeller Foundation with the suggestion that they go in tandem and that the portion of education which could be considered as domestically oriented be taken over by the Rockefeller Foundation and that portion which was oriented to International matters be taken over by the Carnegie Endowment.”

In reply to by land_of_the_few