HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » rhett o rick » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »

rhett o rick

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: Fri Apr 22, 2005, 01:05 PM
Number of posts: 55,981

Journal Archives

Do Some Social Justice Advocates Go Too Far?

This is from an article from medium.com posted by Aristotelis Orginos. More at the link:

Let me finally be abundantly, abundantly clear. Social justice and social justice advocacy is a good thing. To utilize one’s education to solve social ills is an admirable goal.

 in attempting to solve pressing and important social issues, millennial social justice advocates are violently sabotaging genuine opportunities for progress by infecting a liberal political narrative with, ironically, hate.

The version of millennial social justice advocacy  one that uses Identity Politics to balkanize groups of people, engenders hatred between groups, willingly lies to push agendas, manipulates language to provide immunity from criticism, and that publicly shames anyone who remotely speaks some sort of dissent from the overarching narrative of the orthodoxy — is not admirable. It is deplorable. It appeals to the basest of human instincts: fear and hatred. It is not an enlightened or educated position to take. History will not look kindly on this Orwellian, authoritarian pervision of social justice that has taken social media and millennials by storm over the past few years.

But the fact of the matter is — anyone unwilling to engage in productive, open, mutually critical conversations with people they disagree with under the moral protection of liberalism and social justice are not liberals, are not social justice advocates, and are not social justice warriors; they are social justice bullies.

Emphasis in bold added

This is an interesting article and not directed at anyone in DU.

And here is what she will say when the deal is done. "It's not as good as I would have liked.

We may have to improve on some aspects."

With the help of the Democratic Leadership all Democrats could get behind

Sen Sanders. But the billionaires have their eye on a HRC v Jeb Bush general. Win-win as the CEO of Goldman-Sachs explained to his executives.

The American people are the frog in the soup pot. The Republicons want to turn the heat up high, the conservative Democrats are ok with the current simmer, the Plutocratic-Oligarchs are happy either way. I am hoping that the frog follows the lead of Sen Sanders and jumps out of the pot and flips-off Goldman-Sachs, the king of the Oligarchs. I guess I'd rather die trying to save our democracy and economy than "simmer" for another 8 years.

"A handful of DUers", what does that mean? A special group? Where do they discuss these

Posted by rhett o rick | Sat Jun 6, 2015, 01:38 PM (2 replies)

Sadly some people want life to be easy so they think that Republcons are bad

and Democrats are good. That's as far as they want to think. For that reason it's logical that the Oligarchs with their unlimited wealth would coopt the Democratic Party machine. It just takes money. Sadly there are Democrats that have complained about Citizens United that now are ok with it if it helps their candidate. They are apparently blind to the fact that the Oligarchs aren't going to pay $2,000,000,000 (that's 2 Billion) for Democratic principles. This is capitalism folks, it's an investment.

Poverty rates are increasing, more and more people are losing their homes, jobs and retirements. It will continue to get worse if the Oligarchs have their way (it's not personal, it's just capitalism).

"The Oligarchs don't wish us to die, they just don't care if we do."

Please support Sen Sanders, the candidate for the people.

Let's take a look at your logic. You say "just the facts", which first of all would be a little

audacious for you to think that you have been blessed with recognizing the "facts". None of which you've proven yourself but you believe in someone else's "facts". It's understandable that one needs to choose a side, but you choose the side of authoritarianism to believe. You choose the side of the NSA/CIA Black State that has an unlimited budget and no oversight.

I choose the side of skepticism. I believe that with an unlimited budget and no oversight that the NSA/CIA Black State would do whatever they can get away with.

I think that those that despise whistle-blowers, journalist, and protestors, do so because they live in the denial that their chosen authoritarian gods will be good to them. Gen Clapper might use his unlimited power for goodness if we are lucky, but in doing so, he may nullify our liberties and freedoms. Authoritarians are willing to give up their freedoms and liberties for the promise of a little security. They are fools.
Posted by rhett o rick | Sat May 9, 2015, 12:08 AM (1 replies)

I think you might be trying to play down this new Movement.

There is enthusiasm from places that have been ambivalent before. That's why Sen Sanders is such a threat to the status quo, to the Plutocratic Oligarchs, to Goldman-Sachs and the corrupt banksters. They aren't afraid of Sen Sanders as much as they are afraid of the Populist Movement. It's catching on around the world. Protests everywhere about social inequality and economic inequality.

The Corp-Media and the Conservatives are all denying that there is a movement to their own peril.

Get on board the Populist Movement and support Sen Sanders.
Posted by rhett o rick | Sat May 2, 2015, 07:08 PM (1 replies)

Gore got approx 51 million votes. There were 158.8 million eligible voters that

did not vote for Gore. Of those that didn't vote for Gore less than 2% voted for Nader. You should concentrate your wrath on the over 150 million people that didn't vote for Gore. Many thought Gore/Lieberman was a continuation of the DLC Clinton years.

It doesn't matter if you think Gore/Lieberman was a weak choice, millions of Americans thought so and didn't vote for him. A running mate of Lieberman didn't help.

The lesson should be for people that think that Democrats can run a corporate candidate against a Republicon candidate should be surprised when they lose. If you want Jeb, nominate another DLC, corporate candidate in H. Clinton. You won't have Nader for a scapegoat, it doesn't look like.

Soak the Rich? Or Get Our Wealth Back?

When we had controls on our capitalism, the capitalists needed growth to grow their wealth.

During that time the middle and lower classes shared the growth and the wealth. Free and abundant resources helped the growth. However, when the resources became scarce, the huge combined wealth of the middle and lower classes became a very tempting target for the rich. The rich discovered it was easier to buy some Congress-Critters, get the restrictions lifted, and steal from the middle and lower classes. This was not growth. When the middle and lower classes ask for their money back, they are accused of wanting to “soak the rich.”

When the rich are stealing our wealth (they say “it’s just business) like they did when the banks failed in 2008, no growth results. When the rich run the market up by buying and selling back and forth, it isn’t growth it’s a pyramid scheme that will eventually fall.

But if the rich invest in jobs and infrastructure, that will lead to real growth that we can all share. The government (us) needs to strongly encourage the rich to do just that.

I certainly understand having a passion about an issue, but to let it get into the

"drag them into the street and shame them or run them out of town on a rail." stage, is too much. The mob wants their frustrations sated with someone's punishment. They start by intending to punish only those that are most guilty, but it is hard to control because people get involved that are only interested in meting out the punishment, the bullying and not so much the issue. This thread is a great example. The OP author claims to be pro-vaccines but calls for reason. One can be both pro-vaccines, pro-medical science and still not trust Big Pharma. But once the self-righteous frenzy starts, it's hard to contain.

While it's progressive to believe in science it's not progressive to vilify those that don't. The best weapon to fight ignorance is education, not vilification.
Posted by rhett o rick | Fri Feb 6, 2015, 05:01 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »