The SJW - Positive or negative impact on Liberal politics?

Puigb said:

And the fierce backlash has always been from conservatives, who always are resistant to change.

Click to expand...

Yeah, because it then follows conservatives are the only ones resisting change to NAMBLA getting another letter attached on the ever expanding acronym that is now LGBTQ.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States. It works to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors[2][3] and campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.[2][4]

Click to expand...

That's all aside from the historical fact Martin Luther King Jr was raised Republican like most Black-Americans of his time. And most the Southern KKK were pro-union (organized labor) Democrats.

I wonder if the Outlaws Motorcycle Club and Hells Angels Motor Cycle Club vote Republican. Could be but something tells me most of them vote for Democrats (or recently for Donald Trump). Both clubs use the swastika and are notoriously racist.

All these emotional appeals to early 1960s Southern Black-Americans (dressed like "conservatives" by today's standards in the photos you posted) are cliche and tiring. Using them too much like shooting up heroin in the same dosage too much, loses its same "kick."

I know... when you 20 years from now want to marry women to canine you're going to pull up the same tired images of 1960s Southern blacks.

Hey... the Nation of Islam participated in the Civil Rights Movement up North too. Why don't I see you posting photos of them? Oh, does not jive with your agendas. Gottcha. Keep hope alive! :mrgreen:

Puigb said:

And the fierce backlash has always been from conservatives, who always are resistant to change.

Click to expand...

That is the definition of conservative.

adjective: conservative

1.
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

Click to expand...

The reason I state the obvious is because so many are trying to redefine it.

Buzz62 said:

...
Is the Social Justice Warrior, and indeed the entire Politically Correct movement, having a positive or negative impact on Liberal politics?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzc8glS2r_o
...

Click to expand...

Can we get a definition of Social Justice Warrior? Bill Mahr didn't use that term.

Urban Dictionary

A person who causes problems for normal people through protest and constant nagging because they cant accept that life ins't fair

Click to expand...

Wikipedia

"Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views,[1] including feminism,[1][2] civil rights,[1] multiculturalism,[1] and identity politics.[3] The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation, also known as virtue signalling.[5]

Click to expand...

If one uses the Urban dictionary definiton, or if we talk about Political Correctness, Mahr slams examples of it on the right also.




To get back to the question asked, a general statement
The use of violence to try and promote one's political agenda is counter productive.

I think the over whelming consensus is that the PC/SJW "movement" is counter productive, or has a negative impact on the Liberal cause.
Bon.
I appreciate both sides of the argument, and wanna congratulate you people for not reducing this thread to...childish levels.
I think the post by Absentglare, about "overshoot" is about dead-on. We humans always seem to WAY over-react to things.
The "movement" is insidious. "Social Justice" is something all people "should" desire. However, not all people would define "Social Justice" the same, and still others just plain old don't give a **** about it. The infamous Neo-Cons of the Bush era, for instance.

My personal opinion about "bigotry" is that its basically an instinct. That every human experiences it, and some internalize it better than others. However, every time I listen to some SJW accuse others of bigotry and/or the very evil word...RACISM...I have this huge desire to call them hypocrites. So why is it that these, generally well-meaning people, are so very quick to pass judgement on others, while denying their own racism? Why do they insist on advocating horrible and often damaging actions against the evil racist (usually "evil white guy", but "evil cops" as well), when they know that their main motivating factor is...their own racism?

I actually understand the frustration of the BLM movement/organization, I just think they're on a state of extreme "overshoot". They need to rear themselves in, and grow up a a bit. The cause itself? Ya...I'm down for that...of course.
But ANTIFA...man that's another kettle o' fish.
These guys need a spanking, as far as I'm concerned.

Glen Contrarian said:

No, we do NOT "treat the antifa as heroes". Sure, you might find a relative handful of those on the left who do...but that's a very small percentage indeed, just as there's a very small percentage of those on the Right who want to be able to discriminate against people based on race. Don't accuse the whole with the sins of the very few.

That said, I grew up in the deepest of the Deep South, and I loved those Confederate statues...until I was in my 30's and learned just how much about the Civil War I didn't know. I had been taught that the Civil War was not about slavery...but yes, it WAS about slavery, and - speaking as a retired Navy man - there should be NO commemoration of Confederates. Why? Because they had declared that they were no longer American, and fought and killed American soldiers. We should not honor them any more than we should honor those of any other nation who fought against American soldiers.

Conversely, if you insist that they were all Americans, then they were all by definition traitors.

So which are they? Soldiers of a foreign nation? Or traitors? Either way, they are not deserving of any commemorative monuments on American public property. If you want to keep them on your private property, that's your right...but NOT on public property.

Click to expand...

It was Abraham Lincoln himself who wanted Reconstruction.

Glen Contrarian said:

The only reason that conservatives and some independents see "SJW's" as negative is because that's how the right wants to label those who fight for civil rights. According to what seems to be the perception of conservatives today, almost everyone involved in the Civil Rights struggle would have been seen as an "SJW". It seems that even Truman would have been seen as an SJW for demanding full integration of the military.

Here's the key: you can have freedom TO discriminate, or you can have freedom FROM discrimination. You can't have both. Y'all need to make up your minds as to whether you want a nation where people are judged by the content of their character, or whether you stand with the white nationalists who whine whenever those terrible, oh-so-unAmerican SJW's remind them of our nation's racist heritage.

So make up your minds what you want: freedom to discriminate, or freedom from discrimination. You can have one or the other, but not both. Just bear in mind that if you want the freedom to discrimination, someday you (or your children or grandchildren) might be on the receiving end of that discrimination. Careful what you wish for.

Click to expand...

Except that SJW's only fight for the civil rights of specific groups and ignore the civil rights of other groups. If they were fighting for everyone's rights across the board, they'd be seen in completely different light. But what they are doing is picking and choosing the "acceptable" groups to fight for and ignoring the ones they find "unacceptable". Your average SJW would fight to death for an Antifa butt monkey's right to free speech, but will remain silent when those same butt monkeys try to take away a WP butt monkey's right to free speech.

Absentglare said:

There's a phenomenon in feedback control systems known as "overshoot":

Consider the peak of the curve being the cherry picked "SJW", the "Commanded Position" where society should settle, and the starting point pre-1900s or so.

Of course, it should be obvious that social justice is a good thing. We should all continue to be very clear on that. Caring about social justice should not be a point of humiliation. This isn't a joke, people have suffered and died over these issues, and not as long ago as we'd like to admit.

We might ultimately disagree on where the "Commanded Position" should be. That's fine. But the idea that liberals should be ashamed of their passion for social justice is patently absurd. That's just who we are.

Going back go the original theory, denying the cause in general is a doomed proposition. It'd be like arguing that you shouldn't even try steer your car with your steering wheel because you might not get it perfect on the first iteration.

Click to expand...

What you should be ashamed of is only fighting for the rights of those you agree with and fighting against the rights you disagree with.

Negative.

It's matched or exceeded by the negative effect of the self-righteous right-wing christians on the right, so I basically have nowhere to turn. Both groups crossed into the realm of the insane long ago.

<alt>doxygen said:

Negative.

It's matched or exceeded by the negative effect of the self-righteous right-wing christians on the right, so I basically have nowhere to turn. Both groups crossed into the realm of the insane long ago.

Click to expand...

Ya that's true. Which makes me wonder.
Could this be a case of the public being lead down a garden path by both antagonists?
Who actually benefits from all this social upheaval? The news media, for one. This is Christmas to them.

Right-wing-nutz have always been there. Probably always will. And in my memory, the best reaction to them, was no reaction.
To belittle their odd ideas, by refusing to give it lip-service. But now it looks like there are a ton of "left-wing-nutz".
Not yer favorite "Communist" or "Marxist", but crazy-assed activists who feel this overwhelming need to go out and pick fist fights with the people we all used to ignore. And more often than not, they wind up at odds with the cops and the law.

So many people have scolded me, and told me that I can not draw any sort of equivalence between the SJW movement, and the white nationalist movement. I don't "cotton" to either, but I'm not impressed by the actions of one side in particular. Except this person...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDYNVH0U3cs
ROFLMAO!!! Ya...she impresses me...
I wish I could bring back George Carlin for just 1 hr.
He would have LOVED this!

The "left-wing-nutz"...are being outsmarted by a bunch of hill-billies.
Bravo....

faithful_servant said:

What you should be ashamed of is only fighting for the rights of those you agree with and fighting against the rights you disagree with.

Click to expand...

What the **** are you talking about?

faithful_servant said:

Except that SJW's only fight for the civil rights of specific groups and ignore the civil rights of other groups. If they were fighting for everyone's rights across the board, they'd be seen in completely different light. But what they are doing is picking and choosing the "acceptable" groups to fight for and ignoring the ones they find "unacceptable". Your average SJW would fight to death for an Antifa butt monkey's right to free speech, but will remain silent when those same butt monkeys try to take away a WP butt monkey's right to free speech.

Click to expand...

Like when the ACLU stood for the free speech rights of the white nationalists in Charlottesville, hm?

And no, that's not cherry-picking. The ACLU has done that many times before. Y'all can be just as racist as y'all wanna be...right up until the point where it violates our freedoms, because your freedoms end where ours begin, and vice versa. That's why racists can have private clubs that are only open to those of certified Nordic wannabe-Aryan blood (even if their Viking ancestors worshiped Allah), but they can't run businesses open to the general public that refuses to serve only "approved" races, religions, or gender identities.

Moderate Right said:

It was Abraham Lincoln himself who wanted Reconstruction.

Click to expand...

Lincoln was trying to heal a nation. But that does not negate the fact that those who fought for the Confederacy were either (1) fighters for a foreign nation or (2) traitors. They are not deserving of commemoration. Or have you never read, say, the Mississippi articles of secession?

From the opening paragraph:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

The Civil War was about slavery. Do you still think we should commemorate its leaders? And how, exactly, would getting rid of Confederate statues be any different from other nations tearing down statues of past tyrants who committed great evils?

FastPace said:

Yeah, it has a lot to do with American culture.

Aside from being brought up in the "hood" (although, I always went to Catholic schools and not public schools) I've read a couple academic-like books on gangs. America is often considered the birth place of the "super-gangs." How true that is I don't know, but certainly America is one of a few nations of earth to have produced so-called "super-gangs." Brazil and South Africa have produced them. Well... I know Brazil has and if memory service me correct South Africa has too as well.

You could say the Southern Italian Cammora (sometimes referenced as a "mafia") is one, too, given they take in teenagers and are more loosely run like American "super-gangs." Unlike the Sicilian Mafia and American La Cosa Nostra which extremely hierarchical in all or almost all decisions. And neither inducted teenagers. Young men, yes, but not 12 and 15 year-olds.

In the United States the gangs have traditionally done a lot of recruiting at the schools. So, they also helped promote a culture of violence in the schools as well.

Some of the United States super-gangs, the Gangster Disciples (originating from Chicago) in particular, when they were under Larry Hoover, modeled themselves off of for-profit corporations. Larry Hoover read about Japanese corporations while in prison and restructured his gang to model that more....

Click to expand...

Boy oh boy oh boy. Maybe I'm wrong, but it does seem as if you're one of those who spends lots and lots of time focusing on how terrible those nonwhites are. The rest of my reply is going on the assumption that I'm right about you.

Here's a clue: I used to be one of you. There was a time that I would have agreed with you and would have said the same things you did - sorta comes with growing up white in the MS Delta, the very deepest of the Deep South. Funny thing is, even though I and all my family and (white) friends were racist, none of us would have admitted to have being racist. We would have been greatly offended at being called racist, for we honestly believed that the only racists were those idiots who did (what we would today call) Cosplay in white robes and silly hats.

Then I left and joined the Navy and saw the world...and learned that yes, human beings really are the same, all over the world. Yes, our cultures and religions may vary wildly, but once one looks past the religions and cultures, one sees that there is no real difference at all.

Now, as to your rant about nonwhite gangs, here's a clue: if you want a violent culture, it's REAL easy - keep a segment of the population poor (especially if it's the same ones who were treated as slaves for centuries and second-class citizens for another century just because of the color they were born with), and then give that population easy access to guns, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going to happen.

In other words, if you want to blame someone for the rampant gun violence (which btw is FAR below what it was in the 1980's), blame those who wanted to make sure that everybody (even the bad guys) could easily get firearms. And blame the ones who don't want firearms registered and tracked, thereby ensuring that guns are so easily smuggled and sold on the black market (for instance, the quarter-million firearms that are illegally smuggled from America into Mexico every freaking year).

In summary, it ain't the color, guy. It's the poverty combined with easy access to firearms. You don't have to take my word for it - look for yourself what the homicide rates of high-poverty and low-minority states like West Virginia and Alaska are. Of course, you can just ignore all this and go join the Right's worship of the NRA. It's up to you.

APB212 said:

I've never heard of that happening here, but we don't have many guns. Lots of knives though. Everybody had knives and lighters when I was at school. I got attacked with a knife once in primary school, but I don't know of anybody else doing it.



I don't blame you for thinking so.



It's very hard to change culture. I could move to China, speak a Chinese language, eat Chinese food, marry a Chinese girl, have Chinese babies, and practice Chinese traditions. None of that would replace the nuanced experience of growing up in a Chinese family in China. I would still just be a white boy from New Zealand LARPing as Chinese. By the same token, trying to enforce Chinese culture onto average, sheep-farming New Zealanders wouldn't work so well, because they'd just be sheep-farming New Zealanders eating fried rice and playing make-believe.

Click to expand...

1. In America, an "active shooter" situation forcing schools to go on lockdown is common enough that unless multiple people are killed, it never makes the national news. That's a really sad byproduct of the American right-wingers' gun fetish.

2. I never said or implied that humans in Europe are a different species from those in America, and it is poor manners for you to imply that I did so. In serious discussions, please don't put words in the mouths of others.

3. No, it's not impossible to change culture. Before the right-wing racists took control of our government under Trump, one of the great, beautiful things about America was that anyone could come to American and truly be American. I'm white, but I've got extended (Asian) family in Australia...and they're proud Australians. Same thing for my Asian family members living in Florence, Italy. But not so much for the ones living in Riyadh. Heck, go to Canada and see how utterly cosmopolitan the big cities are there.

And it's not only the countries that are majority-white. Go to Singapore - that's about the most racially-cosmopolitan place I know of.

FastPace said:

That whole over said cliche is meaningless now. Liberals keep shifting the goal post on what constitutes good "content of character." So, nonsense. By liberals alone being given the Pontifical authority to keep shifting and determining what is "good character" they empower themselves over all non-liberals by enjoy a self assumed "infallibility."



Everyone discriminates. That is the whole damn point of rejecting others for whatever damned excuse you as a liberal or conservative have. Discrimination does not mean a person is racist or evil, it just means they are not open to all things and all people.

Social Justice Warriors are so damn holier than thou.

What is a Social Justice Warrior crusade for example: Positive body image [for women].

Every damn one of the SJW's finds it perfectly acceptable to discriminate against boys and men based on body looks.

Discrimination and prejudice are a part of life. According the science of biology it drives sexual selection. Which in turns helps drive biological evolution.

So, SJW's are holier than thou and hypocrites.

Click to expand...

"Everyone discriminates". I guess I was right about you in my earlier post.

There was a time when it was normal for men to take underage girls as wives - "everybody did it". There was a time when it was normal to burn witches at the stake. There was a time when it was normal to consign lepers to leper colonies (even though leprosy is not contagious at all). There was a time when it was normal to beat one's wife - YES, it was, not so long ago here in America.

But all those are understood now to be flatly wrong and criminal...thanks to the efforts of what you would call SJW's. In my experience, the real gripe that many of my fellow white men have against SJW's is that we white men actually have to treat others as equals now.

Glen Contrarian said:

"Everyone discriminates". I guess I was right about you in my earlier post.

There was a time when it was normal for men to take underage girls as wives - "everybody did it". There was a time when it was normal to burn witches at the stake. There was a time when it was normal to consign lepers to leper colonies (even though leprosy is not contagious at all). There was a time when it was normal to beat one's wife - YES, it was, not so long ago here in America.

But all those are understood now to be flatly wrong and criminal...thanks to the efforts of what you would call SJW's. In my experience, the real gripe that many of my fellow white men have against SJW's is that we white men actually have to treat others as equals now.

Click to expand...

If I may...I agree with you here...for the most part.
But do we need these violent, anti-constitutional, and in one case I know of, blatantly racist organizations, to assault us with their perpetual howling?
White men DO treat others as equals now. At least all the white men I know. No sir, I think there's something else holding back the social development, or success if you will, of the black community. I think this because I see all other "visible minorities" well represented in the worlds of business, IT, law enforcement, etc...etc...etc.

Maybe its time for the black community, and BLM in particular, to search inward?
I think society as a whole, is rooting for them. I just don't think the "culture" of black America (Canuckland too) "wants" to be a part of this society.

Buzz62 said:

If I may...I agree with you here...for the most part.
But do we need these violent, anti-constitutional, and in one case I know of, blatantly racist organizations, to assault us with their perpetual howling?
White men DO treat others as equals now. At least all the white men I know. No sir, I think there's something else holding back the social development, or success if you will, of the black community. I think this because I see all other "visible minorities" well represented in the worlds of business, IT, law enforcement, etc...etc...etc.

Maybe its time for the black community, and BLM in particular, to search inward?
I think society as a whole, is rooting for them. I just don't think the "culture" of black America (Canuckland too) "wants" to be a part of this society.

Click to expand...

Okay, pull up a chair. It's time for a bit of sociology class.

Many white men do treat others as equals. Many don't. Why do you think that my home state of Mississippi waited until 2013 (yes, FOUR years ago) to finalize ratification of the 13th Amendment banning slavery? Oh, they'll claim that they'd lost the paperwork, that they'd actually ratified the amendment waaaaaay back in 1995 (which was ONLY 130 years after the 13th amendment was first enacted by the United States). No sir, racism is alive and well in America. (FYI, I was raised racist in Mississippi - none of us thought we were racist...but we most certainly were).

We've got a president now who was sued - twice - by the DOJ for refusing to rent to blacks. He is heartily supported by the white supremacist community. And you claim that white men treat others as equals? Again, many do...but many don't.

And YES, racism is found in all races and cultures and religions. The difference, though, is this one fact: in any given nation, there will be one demographic (whether racial, ethnic, or religious) that is socioeconomically dominant. When that demographic begins to believe (rightly or wrongly) that its dominance is threatened, it will "circle the wagons" and do whatever it believes to be necessary to preserve its dominance. What's more, the prejudice committed by that socioeconomically-dominant demographic will be more egregious than that committed by the other "lesser" demographics. In China, it's the Han Chinese against the Uighurs and Tibetans (and others). In Rwanda, it's the Tutsi against the Hutus (and the genocide was seen as revenge for the ongoing 'superiority' of the Tutsis). In Japan, it's the "normal" Japanese against the Ainu. In Saudi Arabia, it's the Sunnis against the Shiites. In pre-Napoleonic France, it was Catholicism against protestants. In Spain during the Inquisition, it was Catholicism against whoever wasn't Catholic (especially Jews). In England, it was the protestants against the "papist" Catholics. In every case without exception, it was the socioeconomically-dominant demographic against whatever "lesser" demographic that was seen as a threat.

And in America, it's the WASPs - the "white Anglo-Saxon protestants" - against whoever isn't one of them. YES, there are many exceptions to the rule....but it is a rule nonetheless. The proof is in the (allegedly-Christian) evangelicals' unshakable support for Trump, who by his three divorces, cheating, and general conduct is obviously someone who stands against everything the evangelicals preach from the Bible. The guy is not a Christian, and does not by any stretch of the imagination live a Christian life or conduct himself with Christian morals...yet the evangelicals eagerly follow him. Why? Because they are the socioeconomically-dominant demographic, and he is "protecting" them against those of "lesser" demographics.

In other words, white men aren't racist because they're white men. White men in America are - if they are WASPs - more likely to be racist to varying degrees, because they're part of the socioeconomically-dominant demographic for this particular nation.

Racism is a part of the human condition. In antiquity, racism was a survival trait - after all, when you saw a group of strange men ride up to your little village and they're of a different race, you had to decide very quickly whether they presented an existential threat to everyone you knew and loved. It's only within the past three centuries that the major nations began to realize that diversity provided more advantages than disadvantages (America was a relative latecomer to civil rights in the developed world). Anyway, the racism is still there, will always be there. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight it at every opportunity - we absolutely should, just as we fight all other forms of prejudice. It's just that we can't overcome thousands of generations of racism-as-a-survival-trait in just a mere handful of generations. But - relatively speaking - we've made great strides indeed.

Glen Contrarian said:

Lincoln was trying to heal a nation. But that does not negate the fact that those who fought for the Confederacy were either (1) fighters for a foreign nation or (2) traitors. They are not deserving of commemoration. Or have you never read, say, the Mississippi articles of secession?

From the opening paragraph:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

The Civil War was about slavery. Do you still think we should commemorate its leaders? And how, exactly, would getting rid of Confederate statues be any different from other nations tearing down statues of past tyrants who committed great evils?

Click to expand...

You heal the nation by not taking down confederate statues and spitting on every confederate soldier. But, you are correct, it is extremely similar to Iraq tearing down statues of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban destroying religious statues they don't believe in - trying to erase history. Look at the ancient tyrant statues we find through archaelogical excavations, such as Caesar, etc. Without those we would not know what any of these people looked like, an important part of our history. We should even have a statue of Hitler so we know what he looked like. It doesn't have to be presented in a way that idolizes him but shows him for the evil person he was. It's how it is all presented, not the fact that we should tear down every statue we find offensive. We could have statues depicting heroes of the Union fighting Statues of Confederate soldiers.

Glen Contrarian said:

Okay, pull up a chair. It's time for a bit of sociology class...

Click to expand...

Shame on Mississippi?
Yes, of course the socioeconomically-dominant demographic is gonna try to hang on to their power base.
And yes, of course racism is an instinct that humanity may never completely eliminate.

Does that excuse blatant stupidity?
Is it "productive" to the cause of equality, to declare all law enforcement agents are "the enemy"?
Is it "productive" to have leaders of an "equal rights" organization, declare that all white people and their babies should be killed?
Is it "productive" to show up at rallies organized by the remnants of the KKK with their silly rhetoric, and start fights with this dying creed?
Is it "productive" to torture handicapped teens, or beat on old white men in the middle of an intersection?

No...it is most certainly not.
And those who propose that there is any way to "justify" this chaotic assault on society, are either extremely short-sighted...Have some form of financial gain from this mess...or are just plain stupid. No?

Buzz62 said:

Shame on Mississippi?
Yes, of course the socioeconomically-dominant demographic is gonna try to hang on to their power base.
And yes, of course racism is an instinct that humanity may never completely eliminate.

Does that excuse blatant stupidity?
Is it "productive" to the cause of equality, to declare all law enforcement agents are "the enemy"?
Is it "productive" to have leaders of an "equal rights" organization, declare that all white people and their babies should be killed?
Is it "productive" to show up at rallies organized by the remnants of the KKK with their silly rhetoric, and start fights with this dying creed?
Is it "productive" to torture handicapped teens, or beat on old white men in the middle of an intersection?

No...it is most certainly not.
And those who propose that there is any way to "justify" this chaotic assault on society, are either extremely short-sighted...Have some form of financial gain from this mess...or are just plain stupid. No?

Click to expand...

Cherry-pick much?

What's happening here is that you appeared to have seen what might have been supported by a vanishingly small segment of the Left, and then you're assuming that the Left as a whole supports that. It's the same thing as if I pointed to the KKK and said the whole Right supported the KKK...but y'all don't, just as the Left doesn't support antifa or whichever extremist group y'all want to point at.

In other words, be careful of cherry-picking - it's not helpful. All it does is warp your perception of reality.

Glen Contrarian said:

Cherry-pick much?

What's happening here is that you appeared to have seen what might have been supported by a vanishingly small segment of the Left, and then you're assuming that the Left as a whole supports that. It's the same thing as if I pointed to the KKK and said the whole Right supported the KKK...but y'all don't, just as the Left doesn't support antifa or whichever extremist group y'all want to point at.

In other words, be careful of cherry-picking - it's not helpful. All it does is warp your perception of reality.

Click to expand...

OK I think I get it.
Sort of like pointing out that the socioeconomically-dominant demographic is gonna try to hang on to their power base?
Or that racism is an instinct?

Today...the entire daily news cycle is being polluted by a hoard of butt-hurt morons who are aghast the Donny didn't address a mother of a deceased soldier as nicely as they'd like...or some such nonsense. Of course he didn't. He's Donald Trump! What part of that don't people get? And for Donny...this is all gravy. His name and picture are all over the news.

And ya...I will "cherry-pick". As long as these SJWs think they can stomp all over constitutional rights...I'll beat them over the head with bags of cherry pits if I have to.

Buzz62 said:

OK I think I get it.
Sort of like pointing out that the socioeconomically-dominant demographic is gonna try to hang on to their power base?
Or that racism is an instinct?

Today...the entire daily news cycle is being polluted by a hoard of butt-hurt morons who are aghast the Donny didn't address a mother of a deceased soldier as nicely as they'd like...or some such nonsense. Of course he didn't. He's Donald Trump! What part of that don't people get? And for Donny...this is all gravy. His name and picture are all over the news.

And ya...I will "cherry-pick". As long as these SJWs think they can stomp all over constitutional rights...I'll beat them over the head with bags of cherry pits if I have to.

Click to expand...

Funny how so many "supporters" of the Constitution talk so much about how their rights are being "trampled"...but they forget the implications of the Equal Protection Clause.

Glen Contrarian said:

Funny how so many "supporters" of the Constitution talk so much about how their rights are being "trampled"...but they forget the implications of the Equal Protection Clause.

Click to expand...

Some do I'm sure. What exactly do you think

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Click to expand...

implies?

Buzz62 said:

Some do I'm sure. What exactly do you think

implies?

Click to expand...

It implies that it's flatly unconstitutional when someone in local, state, or national government uses their position against those of a different race, ethnicity, religion...or gender identity, in accordance with the decision by SCOTUS.

Glen Contrarian said:

It implies that it's flatly unconstitutional when someone in local, state, or national government uses their position against those of a different race, ethnicity, religion...or gender identity, in accordance with the decision by SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

Ya i can agree with that.
So which government today is not adhering to this?