Members banned from this thread: Standing Wolf


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Social Justice Warrior Tires of the Hate and Defects

  1. #1
    Points: 390,436, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    387749
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    131,749
    Points
    390,436
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    12,235
    Thanked 35,317x in 26,317 Posts
    Mentioned
    1564 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Social Justice Warrior Tires of the Hate and Defects

    A defection from SJWs.

    There’s a hopeful testimony from a former Social Justice Warrior on the left that deserves some attention. Keri Smith, once a member of the SJW “cult” as she describes it, wrote honestly about her mounting disillusions with the left and its emerging opposition to things it once claimed to stand for – peace, love, tolerance, and the free and open exchange of ideas.

    Smith started becoming alarmed by the seeming lack of dignity and humanity many of her fellow leftists were demonstrating to their political opposition on the right. As I wrote previously about Planned Parenthood and its defenders, it’s a very short road between dehumanizing your opponents and condoning or committing acts of violence against them.

    When Smith started seeing justification given for committing violence against those on the right, she recoiled and began thinking critically about what she was associating with....
    Read more @ Social Justice Warrior Tires of the Hate and Defects where she speaks of SJW "assumption of moral superiority."

  2. #2
    Original Ranter
    Points: 249,451, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second Class50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteranYour first Group
    Captain Obvious's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    768550
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    72,188
    Points
    249,451
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    25,256
    Thanked 34,690x in 23,556 Posts
    Mentioned
    926 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    SJW's are like those firefighters who start fires only to put them out in their firefighting roles.

  3. #3
    Points: 390,436, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    387749
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    131,749
    Points
    390,436
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    12,235
    Thanked 35,317x in 26,317 Posts
    Mentioned
    1564 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
    SJW's are like those firefighters who start fires only to put them out in their firefighting roles.
    That's sort of the message she goes on to argue in the part I didn't quote.

  4. #4
    Original Ranter
    Points: 249,451, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second Class50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteranYour first Group
    Captain Obvious's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    768550
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    72,188
    Points
    249,451
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    25,256
    Thanked 34,690x in 23,556 Posts
    Mentioned
    926 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    That's sort of the message she goes on to argue in the part I didn't quote.
    I don't deny there are social injustices and there are many who work honestly to neutralize them but there are also many who project and take the strawman approach.

    Everyone is bigoted to some degree, including SJW's.

  5. #5
    Points: 12,958, Level: 27
    Level completed: 35%, Points required for next Level: 592
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger First ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points
    midcan5's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    70467
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Philly, PA
    Posts
    2,395
    Points
    12,958
    Level
    27
    Thanks Given
    607
    Thanked 1,005x in 736 Posts
    Mentioned
    131 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My suspicion is the web site this comes from is another piece from the corporate conservative complex, a complex of rich donors who want to control America by controlling its ideas. Chris in an earlier thread (http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...stice-Activism) posted a piece that questioned the sincerity and then went about labeling the SJW in a way to confuse or cause doubt. To demean is to win. Doubt is the way the CCC manages the media sphere today. If you can spread doubt about government, smoking, global warming, welfare, healthcare, even evolution you've won a segment of the population too busy to read more deeply or to investigate. The book quoted below should be read by everyone, everyone. It covers how conservative wealth has managed to control education and the minds of so many on the right and even the neo-liberal libertarians.

    "On January 21, 2010, the Court announced its 5-4 decision in the Citizens United case, overturning a century of restrictions banning corporations and unions from spending all they wanted to elect candidates. The Court held that so long as businesses and unions didn't just hand their money to the candidates, which could be corrupt, but instead gave it to outside groups that were supporting or opposing the candidates and were technically independent of the campaigns, they could spend unlimited amounts to promote whatever candidates they chose. To reach the verdict, the Court accepted the argument that corporations had the same rights to free speech as citizens.

    The ruling paved the way for a related decision by an appeals court in a case called SpeechNow, which soon after overturned limits on how much money individuals could give to outside groups too. Previously, contributions to political action committees, or PACs, had been capped at $5,000 per person per year. But now the court found that there could be no donation limits so long as there was no coordination with the candidates' campaigns. Soon, the groups set up to take the unlimited contributions were dubbed super PACs for their augmented new powers.

    In both cases, the courts embraced the argument that independent spending, as opposed to direct contributions to the candidates, wouldn't result in corruption. From the start, critics like Richard Posner, a brilliant and iconoclastic conservative federal judge, declared the Court had reasoned "naively," pointing out that it was "difficult to see what practical difference there is between super PAC donations and direct campaign donations, from a corruption standpoint." The immediate impact, as the New Yorker writer Jeffrey Toobin summarized it, was that "it gave rich people more or less free rein to spend as much as they want in support of their favored candidates."

    Among the few remaining restraints that the majority of the Court endorsed was the long-standing expectation that any spending in a political campaign should be visible to the public. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, predicted that "with the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures" would be easier than ever. This, he suggested, would prevent corruption because "citizens can see whether elected officials are 'in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests."

    The assumption soon proved wrong. Instead, as critics had warned, more and more of the money flooding into elections was spent by secretive nonprofit organizations that claimed the right to conceal their donors' identities. Rich activists such as Scaife and the Kochs had already paved the way to weaponize philanthropy. Now they and other allied donors gave what came to be called dark money to nonprofit "social welfare" groups that claimed the right to spend on elections without disclosing their donors. As a result, the American political system became awash in unlimited, untraceable cash.

    In striking down the existing campaign-finance laws, the courts eviscerated a century of reform. After a series of campaign scandals involving secret donations from the newly rich industrial barons in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Progressives had passed laws limiting spending in order to protect the democratic process from corruption. The laws were meant to safeguard political equality at a time of growing economic inequality. Reformers had seen the concentration of wealth in the hands of oil, steel, finance, and railroad magnates as threatening the democratic equilibrium. The Republican William McKinley's elections in 1896 and 1900, for instance, were infamously lubricated by donations raised by the political organizer Mark Hanna from big corporations like Rockefeller's Standard Oil. In a growing backlash to the corruption, at President Theodore Roosevelt's behest, Congress passed the Tillman Act in 1907, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates and political committees. Later scandals resulted in further restrictions limiting spending by unions and the size of individual contributions, and requiring public disclosure. By overturning many of these restrictions, the Citizens United decision was in many respects a return to the Gilded Age." p280/281 Dark Money by Jane Mayer
    Last edited by midcan5; 05-19-2017 at 12:43 PM.
    Wanna make America great, buy American owned, made in the USA. We do.

    Support America - http://american.edu/kogod/research/autoindex/index.cfm

    History: http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...-Hundred-Years
    Education: http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...r-A-Republican

    "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." Dwight D. Eisenhower

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO