The "The Left Eating Itself" Thread

Coja Petrus Uscan

Crow
Orthodox Inquirer
Gold Member
It escalates:

article.png


Not much to the article. Guy shot himself in the college bathroom, left a $100 bill for the janitor to clean up his mess.

It reminds me of the article that begins something like,

"The name Trump is being quietly uttered to professionals up and down the country. One such professional says she has coined a term for her client's ailments, Trump Anxiety Disorder."

The DSM can now add blowing a hole in your arm to the list of severe symptoms.
 
#BoycottTheGuardian trending on Twitter now. Something to do with their treatment of Corbyn and a woman who edits a left-wing fanzine, amongst other things...

Holy shit, I'm clicking between this and the Kavanaugh hearing on the Donald Trump thread. What a night!
 

Thot Leader

Kingfisher
Gold Member
https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.co...id-is-cool-i-guess-but-we-need-les-1829651234

What Taylor Swift Did Is Cool, I Guess. But We Need Fewer White People to Vote, Not More

Earlier this week, millions rejoiced as sentient Facebook algorithm Taylor Swift emerged from her rhinestone-studded cocoon of caucasity to reveal that she recently discovered racism and the importance of voting. This act apparently caused a massive voter registration spike. According to Kamari Guthrie, director of communications for Vote.org, as many as 65,000 people registered within a day after Swift’s politically charged Instagram post.

Also, related, you know the alternative (and better) ending to I Am Legend, where Will Smith was actually the monster and the zombies were only attacking him because he kept kidnapping and killing them? Well, with the newly woke Swift and the comatose Kanye, this is how it feels to be a (former) resident of Yeezus Island in 2018.

Anyway, even with a healthy cynicism of her motives, Swift becoming so outspoken so close to such an important election would seem to bode well for us. (In this context, “us,” of course, is “people who are sane” and “people who are not evil.”) Since it’s safe to assume that the people Swift has the most influence over are millennials, and since younger people are more likely to be progressive, her act might actually have a substantive positive effort on the polls. Perhaps she might even swing a race or two.

That said, of the 65,000 (and counting) that Taylor Swift supposedly inspired to register, I doubt that there are very many black people in there. I’m sure there are some sprinkles of pepper in that sea of salt, but that’s some lonely-ass pepper. Unfortunately, even deeper than my cynicism of Swift is my well-earned skepticism of white people’s voting habits. Never in the history of America has “more white people voting” been a good thing for anyone who wasn’t white.

So much of the push towards voter registration is directed at blacks and other people of color, but we ain’t the problem. When we vote, the vast majority of us take a look at the ballot box and choose the candidates who are the most sane and the least evil. Even with the shitty choices we’re so often given, 90 percent of us still manage to choose the right ones.

Maybe we’re getting it all wrong. Maybe instead of trying to get more of us to vote, the push should be to get less of them to vote. Maybe on Election Day, we should erect targeted barricades at each and every crucible of whiteness, from Cracker Barrel to Lululemon, so they can’t escape until voting is over. Maybe we should push to have soccer moms and suburbanites take citizenship tests before they’re able to vote, and maybe these tests should have unanswerable questions like “Where is Egyptian Musk manufactured?” and undoable tasks like “Sing the third verse in Lift Every Voice And Sing.” Maybe we should just scratch everyone named “Susan” from the polls. Just think about how much better our country would be for everyone—women, the LGBTQ community, Muslims, immigrants, and even Kappas—if only like 17 white people were able to vote.

Of course, I’m not saying that I don’t trust white people at all. (I don’t, but that’s not what I’m saying here, today.) If, for instance, I’m in need of a plumber today and that plumber happens to be white, I will give Sully the Plumber the benefit of the doubt. I also trust white people making coffee and pouring beer, but perhaps that’s only because I don’t drink either. But when it comes to voting ... yeah. I trust them as far as I can see them. Which sucks since voting is done behind a curtain.

So maybe, if Taylor Swift really wants to do some good, she should tell her millions of followers that the midterm elections are happening on Black Friday. Which, all things considered, could even eventually be a pun.
 

Coja Petrus Uscan

Crow
Orthodox Inquirer
Gold Member
Yesterday feminists were stressing out about The Guardian referring to people who menstruate as menstruaters. If you look at any feminist feed you will probably find they've retweeted about ten outrage tweets over this betwixt their own.

Screenshot-at-2018-10-26-07-39-59.png


Screenshot-at-2018-10-26-07-33-29.png


It seemed so over the top to me I wondered if there was something I was missing out on, or if it was some form of left-satire. It's real.

So a women of colour tries to bring awareness of the suffering of women having periods while working. She cites a YouGov survey to add credence to her argument. However, she decided to change the word "women" in the survey to "menstruaters". No doubt to avoid causing offense to queers.

The result: She's pilloried by white lesbians on Twitter. The pernicious head of white feminism rises again.
 

CynicalContrarian

Owl
Gold Member
questor70 said:
Apparently this happened today. Double dose of SJW nuttery, fat-acceptance and the left eating its own.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ic-comedy-apology_us_5be1a0b6e4b09d43e32303d2

Rebel Wilson Apologizes For Claiming To Be First Plus-Size Romantic Comedy Star
The "Isn't It Romantic" star said she was "deeply sorry" for overlooking Queen Latifah, Mo’Nique and other actresses who've come before her.

Rebel Wilson.
Tackling the -big- issues... :rolleyes:
 

mr-ed209

Sparrow
The influence of the lefts cult in academia is growing to the point of self mockery.

Stormy Daniels was granted speaking time at the Oxford Union, for no other likely reason than she might be able to slander Donald Trump over her affair in 2006. Video linked below, I cringed hard when she joked about her 'gag reflex' a min or so in and couldn't really watch any more of it. Why one of the UK's top academic institutions is giving a platform to some washed up, publicity seeking thot goes to show just how far the liberal agenda can stretch to desecrate it's 'hate figures'. Anyone with a rational impartial mind would surely have to see the absurdity of what is going on.

 

PharaohRa

Kingfisher
In America, if you are a ((())), you are number 1, period. Do not be fooled by what you perceive in the fake media. You can get away with alot of things women, gays, trannies and minorities cannot. However, if you are a ((())) and you go against (((their))) narrative willingly (ala Michael Savage), you will get the fury of a thousand suns from not only your own tribesmembers but also from all the librul white SJWs and their minority pets.

As for the whites who are not tribesmembers but are libruls and/or SJWs, yeah they are White Supremacists but they are White bohemian (urban) supremacists who only accept that white is under their socioeconomic, cultural and genetic lenses/definitions. Someone should do a genetics test on those bohemians to determine their haplogroups, I would be curious of the results!
 

spokepoker

Hummingbird
On Tuesday, a coalition of 32 liberal organizations including the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Media Matters, MoveOn, and the NAACP sent a letter demanding Facebook restructure its board of directors, removing CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg, adding three members, and including a "permanent civil rights ombudsman." As would be expected from the SPLC, the groups denounced the "hate" Facebook supposedly supports.

The liberal groups insisted they have "engaged directly with your company in good faith, seeking change from within the company that we hoped would address ... how the platform has been used by hate groups, political entities, and others to stoke racial or religious resentment or violence."

Citing a recent New York Times exposé about Facebook, the groups argued that "in the face of clear evidence that Facebook was being used to broadcast viral propaganda and inspire deadly bigoted campaigns, the company's leadership consistently either looked the other way, or actively worked to lobby against meaningful regulation, shifted public opinion against its allies, and personally attacked its critics."

While Russian operatives were able to use Facebook to peddle misinformation, the accusation that Facebook inspired "deadly bigoted campaigns" seems a clear reference to President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign — specifically his announcement speech, which The New York Times characterized as charged with "racist sentiment." The Times suggested that Facebook's decision not to ban Trump's speech was an early sign of failure, and it seems the SPLC decided to ratchet this up a notch.

"Your company chose to target civil rights groups and our allies instead of changing the way you do business," the groups alleged, referencing Facebook's decision to hire the firm Definers Public Affairs to address its public image problem.

Facebook hired Definers to push back after the liberal organization Freedom From Facebook protested the social media giant. Protesters even held a sign showing Sandberg and Zuckerberg's heads on an octopus, reminiscent of anti-Semitic campaigns in the past. Facebook responded with research into Freedom From Facebook and research into whether or not liberal billionaire George Soros funded its affiliated groups.

The SPLC coalition characterized this research as "mimicking the tactics of the worst, disreputable political operatives and hate groups." The groups accused Facebook of jeopardizing "the safety and security of people who have dedicated their lives to the common good. This decision crossed all lines of common decency."

The SPLC coalition even suggested that funding research into George Soros constitutes anti-Semitism. "It's an absolute disgrace that Facebook sought to deflect criticism and discredit advocates by exploiting anti-Semitic campaigns against philanthropist George Soros," they wrote.

This charge echoed a growing movement to denounce any criticism of Soros — a billionaire who finances all sorts of Leftist groups — as anti-Semitic.

SPLC Leads Soros-Funded Groups in 'Orwellian' Attempt to Ban 'Hate Speech' on Social Media

Yet the SPLC coalition also blasted Facebook for denouncing the octopus image as anti-Semitic. "Unbelievably, Facebook sought to have their cake and eat it too; while you weaponized anti-Semitism directed at Mr. Soros, you attacked legitimate criticism of the company as anti-Semitic," the groups wrote.

Facebook is far from innocent, as the many conservatives who find their posts marked as "hate speech" know far too well. Ironically, the social media giant seems to be listening to the SPLC far too much, not too little.

The SPLC has recast mainstream conservative and Christian groups as "hate groups" for supporting traditional sexual morality and opposing transgender identity. It lists Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian legal nonprofit that has won 9 Supreme Court cases in seven years, and the Family Research Council (FRC) as "hate groups," on the same list as the Ku Klux Klan. In blasting the small Catholic nonprofit the Ruth Institute as a "hate group," the SPLC referenced the Catechism of the Catholic Church, suggesting the Roman Catholic Church is itself a "hate group."

The SPLC's "hate map" inspired a terrorist attack against the FRC in 2012. James Hodgkinson, the man who shot Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) at the congressional baseball game practice last year, "liked" the SPLC on Facebook, and the SPLC had repeatedly attacked Scalise along with other conservatives.

The SPLC may face as many as 60 defamation lawsuits from organizations maligned as "hate groups," after it settled a lawsuit from Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz — whom it branded an "anti-Islamic extremist."

In October, the SPLC led a coalition of Soros-funded groups in a campaign to make social media companies "Change the Terms" of service to keep "hate" off the Internet.

Despite the SPLC's clear partisan bent and its liability for defamation, Google CEO Sundar Pichai admitted last week that Google's YouTube considers the group a "trusted flagger."

The SPLC is by no means alone in this coalition. Along with Media Matters, MoveOn, and the NAACP, the coalition includes Muslim Advocates; the Arab American Institute; Center for Media Justice; CREDO — "America's only progressive phone company"; HOPE not hate; the Muslim Youth Collective; the National LGBTQ Task Force; United We Dream; and more. By and large the groups represent liberal causes.

Louie Gohmert Slams Google for Making the SPLC a 'Trusted Flagger' on YouTube

Both liberals and conservatives have serious concerns about social media, putting companies like Facebook in a tough position. Too often, they cave to the idea that "hate" should not be promoted on their platforms, and liberals complain about this the loudest. Indeed, social media companies arguably should remove posts that incite violence. The problem comes when people redefine speech as violence — especially when they define certain positions as inherently "hateful."

Meanwhile, conservatives find their posts flagged as "hate speech" when they never advocated violence or even insulted anyone. National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) President Jerry Johnson set a deadline for the end of the year, warning that if big tech companies do not stop censoring conservatives, he will lead his 60-million strong group in demanding Congress re-evaluate Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Johnson wants social media companies to lose their immunity from prosecution for the speech they post on their sites.

In general, so long as tech companies are a neutral platform, they should not be held liable for the speech of others. But if Facebook and Google are going to censor conservative views, they should be held liable for the speech on their platforms. If they are going to pick winners and losers, they change from becoming a neutral platform to essentially advocating a message of their own.

Conservatives need to respond to this SPLC coalition with their own demands, just like NRB. The SPLC is pushing tech companies to ramp up their censorship of conservatives in the name of suppressing "hate," while conservatives are just fighting to make sure they can have a voice on these platforms.

Facebook should not cave to the SPLC coalition's demands. The company has a great deal to answer for, but this advocacy will only make the censorship problem worse.

If Facebook yields to the SPLC coalition and places a "civil rights ombudsman" on the board of directors, the coalition will work to make sure that only a liberal definition of "civil rights" is represented. The culture at tech companies like Facebook is already skewed to the Left, and the SPLC is only pushing to make that bias worse.
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
mr-ed209 said:
The influence of the lefts cult in academia is growing to the point of self mockery.

Stormy Daniels was granted speaking time at the Oxford Union, for no other likely reason than she might be able to slander Donald Trump over her affair in 2006. Video linked below, I cringed hard when she joked about her 'gag reflex' a min or so in and couldn't really watch any more of it. Why one of the UK's top academic institutions is giving a platform to some washed up, publicity seeking thot goes to show just how far the liberal agenda can stretch to desecrate it's 'hate figures'. Anyone with a rational impartial mind would surely have to see the absurdity of what is going on.


The real imbeciles aren't officials at Oxford, it's the parents spending millions to prep/fund their children for going to "the most prestigious university in the world". They're the ones feeding the beast.
 

moneyshot

Woodpecker
^you gotta wonder how long the bastions of the tertiary-education complex can coast on their names alone before potential applicants (and especially their parents) begin to wise up in numbers and seek alternative avenues of "education".

(moneyshot says, knowing full well that the answer is "not until the student-loan bubble explodes, and even after that the (((powers that be))) will pull some bullshit to convince the public that their institutions are legitimate")
 

JimBobsCooters

Woodpecker
moneyshot said:
^you gotta wonder how long the bastions of the tertiary-education complex can coast on their names alone before potential applicants (and especially their parents) begin to wise up in numbers and seek alternative avenues of "education".

(moneyshot says, knowing full well that the answer is "not until the student-loan bubble explodes, and even after that the (((powers that be))) will pull some bullshit to convince the public that their institutions are legitimate")

Until the potential employers start to recognise the standards being produced by those prestigious institutions is dropping and a genuine alternative that produces better candidates arises I don't think there is much hope.

Hell, in my state it's well known that one of the other universities has a higher level curriculum and standard for the degree that I have and yet no employer, even people who went to that university, prefer it over the more prestigious university. Part of that is the access to potential clients from that university and its network but most of it's just the prestige of hiring from that university that can be used to advertise as well.
 

Borges

Robin
Gold Member
Women’s March Roiled by Accusations of Anti-Semitism

tl;dr women's march leaders gossiping against each other because one of them was a white Jewish woman.

Ms. Wruble was pushed out of the organization shortly after the march, and she now asserts that her Jewish identity played a role. She went on to help found an organization called March On, which supports local women activists. The rift is now so dire that there will be two marches on the same day next month on the streets of New York: one led by the Women’s March group, which is billed as being led by women of color, and another by a group affiliated with March On that is stressing its denunciation of anti-Semitism.

...

The accusations of anti-Semitism, which were outlined in an article this month in Tablet, an online Jewish magazine, have prompted some women to reconsider their support for the group.

...

“Since that conversation, we’ve all learned a lot about how while white Jews, as white people, uphold white supremacy, ALL Jews are targeted by it,” Ms. Mallory said in a statement to The New York Times.

...

Ms. Wruble, a central organizer of the march, says she agrees that white women, including Jews, should grapple with their racial privilege. She put out a call for women of color to join the planning team and was connected with Ms. Mallory and Ms. Perez. At that first meeting, Ms. Wruble said, they seemed to want to educate her about a dark side of Jewish history, and told her that Jewish people played a large role in the slave trade and the prison industry.

...

At a meeting days after the march, an argument broke out between Ms. Wruble and the other leaders. Ms. Mallory and Ms. Perez began berating Ms. Wruble, according to Evvie Harmon, a white woman who helped organize the march, and who attended the meeting at Ms. Mallory’s apartment complex.

“They were talking about, ‘You people this,’ and ‘You people that’ and the kicker was, ‘You people hold all the wealth.’ I was like, ‘Oh my God, they are talking about her being Jewish,’” said Ms. Harmon, whose account was first published by Tablet. “The greatest regret of my life was not standing up and saying ‘This is wrong.’”

Ms. Mallory denied that she disparaged Ms. Wruble’s Jewish heritage in that meeting, but acknowledged telling white women there that she did not trust them.
 
Top