Well Obama’s the founder of both of them, so there’s that similarity.
I’m for real wondering how Velocity thinks political debate ought to go. Three people, one of whom believes lesbians should be executed, one of whom believes they should be susceptible to firing for their sinful ways, one of whom believes they should be treated by law as a protected class. The third person ought to look at the second, shrug, and say, “Eh, close enough”?
Because he seems real bothered by the idea that the third person would criticize the second for their views.
Is that how conservatives work? Is that why Mark Meadows is fine with the AHCA, even though it’s not what he wants, and why he’s just said, “Eh, close enough”?
y’all are getting sarcasm all over my screen! 
I might not notice, I haven’t given my screen a good scraping in more than a week.
No, no, you have it all wrong. There are FOUR people:
[ol]
[li]one of whom believes lesbians should be executed[/li][li]one of whom believes they should be susceptible to firing for their sinful ways[/li][li]one of whom is more or less OK in theory with not discriminating against lesbians, but only as long as they are not required to think about the issue or do anything about it and any anti-discrimination efforts does not affect them in any way whatsoever, including the inalienable right not to be reminded that there is actually an ongoing social issue here, and of course retaining the right to make lesbian jokes and derogatory comments as they see fit without being subject to criticism [/li][li]one of whom believes they should be treated by law as a protected class[/li][/ol]
It is this 3rd class of persons whose rights to free and open political expression are being unfairly trampled by those bigoted, unreasonable, shrill and intolerant SJWs.
And there lies the problem with the far right, by their metrics everyone is an SJW (or nigger, or homo, or jew, or cuck, or feminazi, or snowflake, etc, etc…) and should be punished for it.
I’ll just say it outright. SJW is straw concept. Its entire point is to exaggerate what may be legitimate points by asserting all sorts of hidden motivations or ideals into the mix. It’s exactly the same as what the people who use it claim liberals do with “racist.”
There are, of course, some people out on the loonie fringes of the left. But those, by and large, are not what people use the “SJW” label to mean. Sure, they’ll use them as examples when they want to say that SJWs are evil, but they apply the concept to anyone who is pro-social justice, or, at least, more pro-social justice than the speaker.
It is, ironically, what they claim liberals are doing with the word “racist.” They claim we’re taking all these non-racist things and calling them racist. But we aren’t. The problem is, they’ve gotten this fucked up idea that “racist” means “monster.” They think it’s just an insult. But it describes a real concept. You can be a lot racist and be a monster. You can be a little racist and just need to say “oops, sorry. Didn’t mean to offend.”
And, as a derogatory term, it is one that has been reclaimed. Now I actually will sometimes proudly call myself an SJW. Because I do in fact argue for social justice. More often, I simply use the definition of SJW back at the people who use it, just like I do with “snowflake” and similar.
In fact, I would flat out call the OP an SJW. Getting all upset about isolated cases? Acting as if they represent some social ill that we need to fix? You’re doing exactly the same things you accuse SJWs of doing, just on the other side.
What you don’t do are the good things that so-called SJWs do. Just the bad things you accuse them of doing.
And, to Ale: of course everyone is a bigot. How is that controversial?
I actually took that test where you see how you associate dark skin with bad things. I do it, too. Even though I’m vehemently anti-racist, I still have some bigotry in me.
What I don’t get are all these people on the right wing that apparently think they’ve perfected themselves on that issue. Or any issue, really. I’m a little bit racist. I’m a little bit selfish. I’m more than a little bit of a coward. I’m a little bit squeamish. I’m a little bit hateful. I’m a little bit sexist. I’m a little bit homophobic. And I can go on and on.
What in the world is wrong with acknowledging this and working on it? What is wrong with acknowledging this in others and trying to help them work on it? Thing is, I know those things are bad, so I’m trying to make the world better.
That’s social justice. And why the fuck is that a bad thing?
So, a new user in this thread insisting using some other culture’s words is cultural appropriation (posts number 3 and 7, so far.)
It’s a dumb argument, I agree, and it should be opposed. It’s dumb for linguistic reasons, though; the impulse behind it–concern for other cultures–is a fine impulse.
In today’s stupid Social Justice Warrior bullshit o’ the day update:
Black artists protest inclusion of Emmett Till painting in gallery because the artist is white.
Not only that, the leader of the protest, in a display of the kind of openness to free expression we’ve come to expect from SJW’s, requested that the painting be, not just taken down, but destroyed.
It’s worth noting that the painting is not mocking or disrespectful of Till in any way, shape or form. Literally the only problem these censorious assholes have is the skin colour of the artist. That’s it. If a black artist had painted the exact same thing they wouldn’t have protested.
Sadly, the artist herself has capitulated and asked the painting be removed, prioritising the feelings of a very small and vocal minority over her own artistic integrity, which is a shame.
I looked up Hannah Black and of course she was a Goldsmiths student. It’s a good arts school and they produce a lot of excellent artists but Jesus they’re a whiny bunch. This sort of thing is what they do to get attention and pretend that their thoughts on any matter (and by association their artworks) are deep and meaningful.
I agree that the road to wackyland is paved with good intentions. But you still end up in wackyland.
She should retitle it “I Can’t Paint Heads So I Just Randomly Smear Paint With My Fingers And Pretend That It Is Art.” and put it back on display.
So I can admit it when I’m wrong.
I’ve long maintained that conservatives are being dumbshits for getting in a freakout rage every time some undergraduate said something stupid. First, teenagers say dumb things; second, the freakouts give the teenagers far more press than they’d otherwise get; third, these same folks are conspicuously silent when powerful conservatives do much more harmful things, such as close academic programs in the UNC system because they dislike the program’s political implications.
But my focus on undergrads was wrong, I can admit it.
It’s not just undergrads saying outrageous things, y’all. IT’S ARTISTS TOO!
Holy fuck!
What is HAPPENING in society when there are ARTISTS who say outrageous, provocative, stupid things? What have we COME to?!!!
faints dead away
It’s okay, we have a name for them now. SJW. It makes it all better.
I will treat the story of the painting with exactly the gravity I think it deserves:
Hey, at first glance that seems kind of silly.
The problem here isn’t the artist; artists will say anything. I don’t blame her for being who she is. The problem is with the gallery that listened to her.
The gallery’s statement appears to support the painter.
That’s how I read it as well.