Every day I'm just amazed at what I read from these people. It's unreal.

What you're describing here sounds similar to the sorts of complaints you hear about overly religious folks, doesn't it? Thoughts of my crazy chain-mail forwarding, alway judgmental, evangelical aunt singing "Onward Christian Soldiers" waving her hands like she's tickling the Holy Spirit's genitals come to mind. I hope describing her like this doesn't offend every Christian.

I suppose if you're a part of a movement that activity pushes it's collective morality down everyone else's throats, you're bound earn some stereotypes.

Pot-kettle poetry?

The girl was a free speech advocate wearing a red hat that read "Make Bitcoin Great Again," She was pepper sprayed, apparently because the perp identified her as on the "wrong" team. I suppose he might have sprayed her for being a free speech advocate, which is no better.

Lol, you continue to make strange, meaningless distinctions that show how bankrupt your positions are. Please keep posting ITT.

Any sign of Fredrick Douglass ITT yet? He maybe busy doing terrific things, so might have to quote him ourselves.

The Civil Rights Movement sure did.

So did The Temperance Movement.

There is a line between agitation and hysteria. I recognize people who believe they are fighting for civil rights need to protest and raise hell, I support that and take part in it when I believe the cause is fit. The line is crossed when protesters become violent, intimidating and trying to stop others from speaking.

I'm sorry, but I dislike Milo Yabadabadoo, and I might even protest against his stance on transgender rights. He has ****ty opinions about some things, but he's not a fascist, and there is no reason to try to violently prevent his supporters from gathering to listen to him. Likewise, Ben Shapiro has some opinions I disagree with, but he should be allowed to speak to people without protesters pulling fire alarms, threatening his supporters and otherwise shouting him down. There are plenty of other examples of this type of behavior and generally illiberal attitudes from those being labelled "SJW's" in this thread.

I think Frederick Douglass would agree.

Sure, and in a similar way there is a lot of conspiratorial thinking about Christian theocracies among progressives and liberals. I also understand that you are willing to offend Christians as well as progressives. My view there is basically the same as with regards to other forms of bigotry. Offending someone is not necessarily wrong. But being bigoted is something you should try to minimize, and bigotry is a common reason why members of social groups get offended for identity reasons. This applies to bigotry towards Christians as towards any other social group.

Yes, this is true. Most All social or political movements that advocate for changes for moral reasons will be viewed as puritans or people will mock them as overbearing using stock stereotypes. This is not a good reason to not stop using moral reasons to advocate for social or political change.

And this is why I hesitate to use the term "SJW", because I feel it's inherently too broad and easily misunderstood, preferring instead more specific terms like illiberal left or the loud crazy online social justice crowd, etc., etc., but I must admit, the term social justice warrior has a certain ironic quality and poetic flow to it, so it's no wonder it has legs, and I don't expect it to fade into obscurity anytime soon... at least as long as many of those it describes continue to act in the ways described here.

True, however, you can expect your newish take on morality to be challenged at every turn due to the subjective nature of such things.... e.g., why are left-wing liberal moral values better than right-wing conservative's, or libertarian's, etc? And so attempts to convince provide more substantial progress than clear bullying tactics, for obvious reasons*, and as I'm sure you know well, even if you can make your case clearly and convincingly it will still be a tough go due to simple inertia, so a certain measure of patience and steadfast resolve is required as well as perspective.

*actually, I'm not sure the reasons are obvious to some people.

How many girls got pepper sprayed? Because I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same person, and your description is dishonest at best.

That was a trap.

Read this carefully: It's not my distinction. You might think it's a strange, meaningless distinction but that's still the distinction. It's precisely why the mozilla thing became a thing.

I mean ffs, I'm bound to partially agree with you, that it's a less than meaningful distinction, but that's the argument to be made, that you feel donating money to the cause is just the same as merely having an opinion, and it amounts to Thoughtcrime or whatever.

The reason people find you to be a dishonest poster is for exactly this reason. If you had the courage of your convictions you'd present it as is rather than assume the premise and beg the question by saying, "Things are getting pretty crazy when your job is at risk for having an opinion most Christians have."

There is nothing dishonest about my opinion. It's entirely ridiculous to be forced out of your job for donating $100 to a bill against gay marriage, that sort of thing likely contributed to the fears of Christians that allowed them to rationalize voting for a clear charlatan who promised to defend them over promises of more of the same. Likewise, I have no clue why you're disputing my representation of the girl who was pepper sprayed. It's on video, FFS. Feel free to elaborate if I've missed some context.

Yeah, uh, no, he wouldn't.

Once again, please keep posting. You're objections continue to have no merit. In the Milo thread there are posters stridently calling for police to break up meetings if protesters get too rowdy in order to avoid violent outcomes, thereby advocating for the Heckler's Veto.

#TeamWEBDubois

It was $1000. This is what I'm talking about.

But again, you're not reading carefully. I didn't say your opinion was dishonest, I said your presentation, your framing of the issue, was dishonest by not describing it as monetary/material support for a cause, instead going with the idea of merely having an opinion. 'We' worship money so in many cases, this case included, this is seen as a huge distinction.

There's no reason to not frame it the accurate way and go from there, unless your trying to be dishonest. Maybe it's a subconscious accident.

I.e.

Cops protected Milo, cops didn't protect Fred. Read better. That's not meant to be an insult because I know you're more than capable.

I see no meaningful distinction. Calling that dishonest is laughable. There were probably thousands of Christians who donated to that cause, and millions who would like to have. They all would have been motivated to vote for Trump based on the idea Hillary represented the side who would put their jobs at risk for their religious convictions. Again, your objections have no merit, and are meaningless distractions that perhaps prevent your getting the point.

Actually you're wrong. Milo's speeches have been cancelled because cops were unable or unwilling to protect him, same with many other conservative campus speakers, like Ben Shapiro. These are documented and have been presented throughout these threads. You're welcome to do your homework.

Ok, this is the crux of all these issues.

1. The girl supports trump, vociferously, as she is at a counter protest broadcasting her message.

2. He is terrible and safe money is on him destroying the republic.

3. The girl is de facto vociferously supporting the destruction of the republic.


Now, you can make the argument she doesn't deserve to get pepper-sprayed, sure. It's a pretty easy argument to make. But, you can't say, oh look at this innocent little spring chicken getting accosted for wearing a red hat. That's just an insane level of dishonesty.

Ok, then you're just not very good at this.

I already said I partially agree, that it's a less than meaningful distinction, but I grasp how it can be a potential distinction to some people and was in this case.

Maybe I'm just dunningkrugering myself again.

That's a strong citation-needed if I've ever seen 1.

We are going assemble the best team of examples, ideas, and approaches to further the struggle for justice in our communities and it will be great. Those supremacists are human beings and some of them have been influenced and impressed or had their biases reinforced by divisive propaganda. We should help any we can and leave the name-calling to professionals and comedians.

#alternativetrump

#makecivilrightsgreatagain