Social justice warriors

[beancounter]

What you posted "negative about Hilary" was a right wing video repeating some of the most extreme conspiracy theories about the Clintons that the right has come up with.

You're doing something similar in this thread, with the videos and links that you are posting in "support" of your position.

It's like when someone posts a video of one of those whacked out veg*n extremists who advocate killing humans to "save" nonhumans, to "support" their argument that vegans are a whacked out, violent bunch.

I don't think you're unintelligent, so therefore I assume you realize exactly what you are doing. The only question is "why?"

I am giving examples of extremist behavior. I do not think extremist behavior is productive.

Whether they are conspiracy theories or not is not the point. Any opposition/questioning is viewed in black and white terms. As I said before, giving a politician a free pass, or assuming anything negative about said candidate is a conspiracy - just because the alternative is worse doesn't really help anything in the long run.

If you think that the Clintons are just innocent lambs, and that anyone who accuses them of anything or questions their motivations is a right wing conspirator, well, you just proved my point.

 

[Mischief]

Whether they are conspiracy theories or not is not the point.

Of course it's the point!

If someone asserts that the WTC was brought down by a cabal of Jewish bankers trying to cement their dominion over the world economy, that tells us a whole lot about the person making that assertion, not the least of which is that his dislike of Jews trumps his ability to see truth, much less have the ability to have a reasonable discussion of banking practices.

If someone trots out a video repeating absurd claims about Hillary Clinton - well, see the preceding paragraph.

 

[beancounter]

Of course it's the point!

If someone asserts that the WTC was brought down by a cabal of Jewish bankers trying to cement their dominion over the world economy, that tells us a whole lot about the person making that assertion, not the least of which is that his dislike of Jews trumps his ability to see truth, much less have the ability to have a reasonable discussion of banking practices.

So, you actually think everything mentioned in that video was the same level of extreme as you example? Hardy. It's just a round-about way of saying "if you're not 100% with us, you're against us".

Interesting you didn't respond to my other assertion. ..

Do you believe the Clinton's to be innocent lambs who are beyond reproach?
The email issue demonstrates carelessness at best, gross negligence at worst. Does that not concern you?

 

[Mischief]

So, you actually think everything mentioned in that video was the same level of extreme as you example? Hardy.

Interesting you didn't respond to my other assertion. ..

Do you believe the Clinton's to be innocent lambs who are beyond reproach?

No, I don't think the Clintons are "innocent lambes who are beyond reproach." (But then, I don't think anyone is, including Bernie Sanders, or you, or I.) I actually dislike Bill Clinton quite a lot, for quite a number of reasons.

If you ever want to have an actual, productive, conversation, though, it's best to not start it by slinging evident lies. That's extremist behavior, and I don't approve of it, or think it productive, or believe there's much point in trying to have an actual discussion with someone who resorts to it.

 

[Spang]

Hillary Clinton has a career that spans nearly 40 years. She's done a lot of awful things, such as referring to Black youth as “super predators”, waging a campaign against labor unions when she was on the board at Wal-Mart, lobbying Congress to pass her husband’s racist crime bill, which escalated the drug war and put more Black people behind bars, etc.

Donald Trump is the alternative, though. You may need to vote for Clinton to keep the reality star out of the White House. Just know that Clinton is a war criminal with the blood of children on her hands.

 

[FortyTwo]

"Two-faced Fascists," oh my God. That's some **** straight out of a neo-Conse

Wolf in sheep's clothing
Two-faced fascists
Self righteous censors

TRIGGER WARNING -
How Social Justice Warriors Are Creating An Entire Generation Of Fascists

"With that said, never have I encountered anyone who was so giddy about their hatred than the people who make up the SJW community. These are people who, on a regular basis, call for violence and genocide against “oppressors”, whether it’s white people, heterosexual people, thin people, or just anyone who even slightly disagrees with them."

"Two-faced Fascists," oh my God. That's some **** straight out of a neo-Conservative subreddit.

Look, the people that you're fighting against don't actually exist. That is the big secret of this whole thing (though Spang has been pretty damn clear about it, and more eloquent than I could have been). People joking around about the **** they face from cruel people and systems in their lives is not a threat of genocide nor has it ever been. Hell, most minority groups can barely muster up enough support from systems of power to have characters that resemble them on mainstream television shows, and even then people like you throw a fit about "overly-PC censors ruining our" blah blah, etc.

I suppose you'll want to link me to tumblr posts someone barfed all over a cringe subreddit or BestOfTumblr or somesuch? "Gotcha, look, this person actually believes all men should be killed!" Because 99% of those were either made by fourteen-year-olds (whose political opinions, as we know, are always perfect and unbiased and totally make sense) or accounts literally set up as parody accounts by members of "anti-SJ" groups. Other members of similar groups totally fail to recognize these as parody and then repost them. So then you get a bunch of twenty-something guys on reddit looking at a hand-picked selection of social media posts made by literal children and misguided "satirists" and getting really pissy about it. For a group that snickers about how people get "lol triggered" so much, they tend to be terribly hotheaded and unable to handle criticism of any sort.

Oh, and the concept of "trigger warnings" isn't a funny ha-ha joke. It's literally just content warnings for people who would rather not see something related to an actual trauma they experienced. You know, like rating a video game M for Mature and having a brief description of what that involves. By mocking the idea of a trigger warning you're not being funny. This **** ain't cute. You'd probably have a different reaction to a Vietnam veteran asking people not to set off fireworks near his home though, right? PTSD is only funny when the icky SJWs have it.

I ask again, in total seriousness - how is this person, who is so happy to tell large portions of people who are sticking up for themselves that they are genocidal fascists and casually employing a cruel joke that openly mocks the "wrong kind" of PTSD victims, allowed to be a moderator?