Everything the social justice crowd told us was a lie
By: becketadams (Restoring America)
The Virtue Signaling Brigade
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Opinion Everything the social justice crowd told us was a lie By Becket Adams, Contributor October 30, 2023 10:50 AM
Pro-Israel demonstrators sing a song during a protest at Columbia University, Thursday, Oct. 12, 2023, in New York.
Everything the social justice crowd has said for the past 15 years has been a lie.
The movement gained a foothold in American culture around 2008, riding a wave of popular reexaminations of race relations, political divisions, and systemic disparities. It styled itself as an honorable call to right the wrongs of society, both historical and contemporaneous.
The past three weeks, however, have served as definitive proof that the benevolent emperor is a naked tyrant. The warriors for the oppressed are not so noble and selfless as they claim. Neither are they singularly motivated by the ideals of "inclusivity," "equity," and "diversity." They're as greedy, vicious, prejudiced, and hateful as the oppressors they accuse.
The "social justice" crowd has only ever cared about acquiring power and influence, creeping toward this goal via emotional blackmail, intimidation campaigns, and even occasional violence. Theirs is not a cause for justice, but for self-enrichment; a relatively bloodless conquest for power and treasure. They simply disguise their self-interest in the language of "justice" and altruism, all the while plotting new ways to seize for themselves the "privilege" and "power" they envy in others.
Nothing has done so fine a job of laying bare this reality as Hamas's Oct. 7 slaughter of 1,400 Israelis, mostly civilians, including children. Since that day of mass murder, social justice activists have flooded city streets and college campuses across the West, cheering war crimes and calling for the destruction of Israel.
They chant explicit calls for ethnic cleansing, including " From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free ," " There is only one solution, intifada revolution ," and " We can't wait for the caliphate !" They proudly display signs showing the Star of David in a wastebasket, accompanied by the caption, " Please keep the world clean ." They tear down posters featuring the faces of Israeli adults and children held hostage by Hamas. They use projectors to display messages such as " GLORY TO OUR MARTYRS " onto school buildings.
These are the same people who claim they're traumatized by "violent" rhetoric. These are the people who turned terms such as "safe space" and "trigger warning" into everyday cliches. These are the people who ruthlessly enforce DEI policies and ideology in the name of protecting marginalized peoples. They're left-wing academics, students, activists, and bureaucrats, and they proudly endorse violence and terror.
They're having an effect.
Jews in New York City have been told to avoid certain areas for fear of targeted violence. Some Jewish schools in the United States closed on Oct. 13 after Hamas leadership called for a "Day of Rage." At America's institutions of higher learning, some Jewish students are going into hiding as their classmates hold vigils for the Palestinian "martyrs " of Oct. 7. College administrators have been slow to condemn the pro-terrorist demonstrations that have descended on their campuses. They've been even slower to offer protections for Jewish students .
The team that claims it cherishes "inclusivity" and "diversity" more than anything else has embraced Hamas and its mission to annihilate a marginalized group. They've effectively become acolytes for Hamas.
Yet these students, academics, and activists tell us they stand against "violent" language. They tell us certain rhetoric should be punished and even outlawed. They tell us rhetoric is sometimes literal violence. They tell us they hear racist dog whistles every time the Right criticizes Democratic governance. They hound private citizens for perceived "microaggressions," including the wearing of "offensive" Halloween costumes.
They accuse the Right of waging "literal genocide" against the LGBT community. They even browbeat the NFL's Redskins and the MLB's Indians into changing their names to the Commanders and the Guardians, respectively. They call anyone who hints at disagreement a literal Nazi. They invented an entire industry to comfort and coddle students, employees, activists, etc., who claim they've been "traumatized" by conservative rhetoric. They endlessly accuse the Right of promoting antisemitism and antisemitic tropes, gorging themselves on news and media commentary that alleges the same .
Given these stated values, how are they cheering actual war crimes, holding vigils for actual terrorists, and engaging in the most stridently antisemitic and fascistic behavior and rhetoric this side of World War II ? When it comes to Jews, where are those "safe spaces"? The attic? What happened to all that "Hate has no home here" pablum? In this house , do we not defend the Jewish people from calls for their extermination?
For the people who've berated the country for the past 15 years about inclusion and diversity, the answer is clearly a resounding no.
The Jews do not count. Jewish lives don't matter.
The secret to understanding these contradictory positions is this: The "social justice" types don't actually oppose hateful language and dangerous rhetoric. They don't care about equity and inclusivity. Attempts to censor speech, dogpiling nobodies for even the most banal "microaggressions," physically intimidating ideological opponents — these are nothing more than exercises in raw power, some pointed and some simple exertions of control. These are the methods by which they elbow out, shut down, and eventually destroy altogether those with whom they disagree and those whose destruction could provide them and their kind with more opportunities and "privilege."
To the left-wing social justice activist, Jews are just a subset of "white oppressors." And it's both right and just to strip the "white oppressor" of his "power" and "privilege" "by any means necessary." This is the stated goal of the social justice movement, as expressed in increasingly explicit terms over the years. The rallies in support of Hamas aren't surprising, then, when one understands the stated aims of the "social justice" movement. For the movement, Hamas presents yet another opportunity for the tearing down and marginalization of an "acceptably" hated group and the reassignment of its "privilege" to better and more deserving stewards.
Everything the social "justice" crowd has told us about working for a more peaceable and inclusive tomorrow has been a lie. And nothing has revealed this so clearly as the spectacle of them standing shoulder to shoulder with a hyperviolent antisemitic death cult.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
Becket Adams is a columnist for the Washington Examiner, National Review, and the Hill. He is also the program director of the National Journalism Center.
No Trump, no trolling, no fascist nonsense.
Tags
Who is online
429 visitors
In a nutshell
Which 'social justice crowd'? There are multiples covering the entire political landscape ... the phrase has become pejoratively useless.
Like those who are anti-woke
I will say the term, social justice is fine of itself. I won't give conservatives the ability to kill anything that works to free oppression in a land that lauds itself as a place of 'max' freedoms. Who cares that conservatives don't like the phrase. Conservatives don't like anything that does not suit their narrow but selective goals!
I say let's put social justice back in its proper context [deleted]
Opportunistic bullshit. As anybody over three. . .okay, five years old can tell. . .two or more things can be true at the same time. Why just this morning I got two calls on my landline and cellphone at the same time: I answered both of them in time in case you wonder.
It is possible that the Palestinians have a case to make the same or similarly as Jews. And, I will point out that the number of civilians in Gaza that are reported to be killed because of bombing is already higher than the dead reported in Israel. I am so sorry to read/speak on all of this. I repeat this is the saddest part of the world to me for all the inhabitants in Palestine and Israel; Israel and Palestine. Because they are 'stuck' on one another in the worse way/s possible. And to that end, it just might take the power of God to fix this 'mess!'
What pisses me off is the SANCTIMONIOUS bs that sees opportunity to express itself for one side without any regards to the COMPREHENSIVE nature of the problems. This 'mess' can not be fixed by instigation and 'stirring the pot'!
To that end, the writer of this article thinks to take this OPPORTUNITY OF GREAT GRIEF AND DESPAIR in the Middle East to 'take down' some of those persons/groups who wish for good in the world, especially because they have seen what it is like to be be beat down and suppressed. But, as the saying goes, "The Devil is a lie!"
We see the 'display' for what it is. A hollow attempt to exploit a RECURRING entrenched problem space in the world in order to bad-mouth enemies of the Right.
It's sad. It's weak. It's wearying. It's tiresome. It's all to common on the Right to make the attempt every damn time tragedy strikes the world.
How would you compare American civilians murdered by Nazi Germany to German civilian casualties?
Of course-- American civilian casualties during WWII were exceedingly small compared to German civilian casualties.
Based on your logic (actually rea;;y stupid non-logic) in WWII Americans were "wrong"-- the evil ones-- whereas German Nazis were innocent victims.
Let's hear some sympathy for German Nazis-- innocent victims of the evil Allied war machine!!!
(I wonder how many people here have noticed the (well deserved) sarcasm...?)
What the heck are you talking about?
The trolling and fascist nonsense is pre-built into the article.
You should look up what the word fascism actually means.
That's the point. You throw it around like the race card gets thrown around. Perhaps it isn't me who needs to look it up. In addition, I think a crash course in the use and definitions at MBFC. It would save you some silly flags. Just an FYI
Says the "I got mine" conservative. Well, we want ours too! So, now what?! [deleted] My advice: Conservatives look down your own noses at yourselves. . [.deleted]
Yes we must (take your advice). How can any intelligent human being ignore the sage advice from a true genius such as you?
("Everyone knows" that you are smarter, better-informed, and wiser than the vast majority of "ordinary" folks on NT!)
Get off your ass and go get it.
Nobody is stopping you.
Be as liberal as you want. Just use your own money.
What the hell is that, Krishna? Sarcasm? Biting humour?
Says the "I got mine" conservative. Well, we want ours too! So, now what?! This is a sorry attempt to take down the good because some conservatives can't stand other people being free to NOT be (some) conservatives. My advice: Some conservatives look down your own noses at yourselves. . .then, you will see the tragedy you all have made of other people's lives and lifestyles!
[deleted]
Do you use your own money to be (some) conservatives. My understanding is . . . here, let the graph speak for itself:
Federal Dependency Rankings by State
To find the states in the U.S. that were most dependent on the federal government in 2022, MoneyGeek analyzed the return on taxes sent to the federal government and the percent of each state’s revenue provided by the federal government. We also compared states by political affiliation and per capita GDP to learn more about the factors that contribute to federal dependency.
1
New Mexico
Blue
100.0
$3.69
32.06%
$122,359
2
West Virginia
Red
89.5
$3.09
34.07%
$96,724
3
Mississippi
Red
75.0
$2.60
32.41%
$138,156
4
Alaska
Red
73.0
$2.41
33.90%
$64,257
5
Kentucky
Red
57.8
$1.89
32.20%
$258,293
6
Vermont
Blue
54.9
$1.50
35.83%
$40,249
7
Montana
Red
50.8
$1.59
32.13%
$64,757
8
Arizona
Red
49.8
$1.71
30.07%
$453,602
9
Maine
Blue
47.2
$1.72
28.27%
$83,514
10
Alabama
Red
46.2
$1.80
26.61%
$275,396
11
Louisiana
Red
44.7
$1.25
33.38%
$281,047
12
Wyoming
Red
38.8
$1.11
31.87%
$48,044
13
District of Columbia
Blue
38.1
$1.38
27.65%
$160,728
14
South Carolina
Red
37.4
$1.71
22.71%
$292,932
15
Oklahoma
Red
34.9
$1.50
24.19%
$242,303
16
South Dakota
Red
34.3
$0.83
32.97%
$67,489
17
Hawaii
Blue
34.2
$1.83
19.19%
$96,979
18
Idaho
Red
33.2
$1.23
26.94%
$108,438
19
North Dakota
Red
28.6
$1.12
25.68%
$74,745
20
Rhode Island
Blue
27.2
$0.77
29.75%
$70,759
21
Indiana
Red
26.6
$0.99
26.39%
$452,422
22
Virginia
Blue
25.1
$1.47
18.93%
$642,755
23
Maryland
Blue
24.9
$1.23
22.07%
$465,635
24
Arkansas
Red
24.8
$0.78
28.17%
$163,779
25
Michigan
Blue
24.4
$0.99
25.06%
$615,408
26
New Hampshire
Blue
23.3
$0.94
25.17%
$104,172
27
Missouri
Red
21.7
$0.85
25.50%
$386,397
28
Oregon
Blue
21.6
$1.01
23.19%
$294,325
29
Pennsylvania
Blue
21.0
$0.92
24.14%
$915,424
30
Connecticut
Blue
17.0
$1.04
20.00%
$317,907
31
North Carolina
Red
16.6
$0.89
21.97%
$723,163
32
Delaware
Blue
15.6
$0.32
29.24%
$86,673
33
Iowa
Red
15.1
$0.97
19.88%
$230,104
34
Tennessee
Red
14.6
$0.78
22.32%
$469,938
35
Texas
Red
12.6
$0.83
20.49%
$2,354,455
36
New York
Blue
11.7
$0.74
21.06%
$2,034,912
37
Nevada
Blue
10.9
$0.90
18.42%
$213,410
38
Florida
Red
10.6
$0.77
20.00%
$1,371,468
39
Georgia
Red
10.3
$0.85
18.77%
$747,535
40
Kansas
Red
9.9
$0.87
18.26%
$209,272
41
Ohio
Red
8.6
$0.62
20.95%
$817,627
42
Minnesota
Blue
8.1
$0.69
19.68%
$442,528
43
Massachusetts
Blue
7.4
$0.54
21.39%
$679,122
44
Wisconsin
Blue
5.5
$0.84
16.09%
$398,850
45
Nebraska
Red
5.4
$0.64
18.81%
$161,260
46
Colorado
Blue
5.0
$0.83
15.93%
$480,828
47
Utah
Red
4.3
$0.79
16.08%
$245,831
48
California
Blue
3.8
$0.65
17.80%
$3,558,512
49
Illinois
Blue
3.2
$0.60
18.08%
$1,024,019
50
Washington
Blue
0.4
$0.63
16.00%
$717,336
51
New Jersey
Blue
0.0
$0.56
16.79%
$737,654
Red States Lead With Federal Dependence
Democratic-leaning blue states tend to be wealthier and pay more to the federal government than they get. In contrast, Republican-leaning red states tend to have less wealth and receive more federal government funds than they pay . In the MoneyGeek rankings, 7 of the 10 most dependent states are considered red states.
Policy choices may partially explain this relationship.
"A really conservative state might choose to tax itself at a lower rate, which means by default, they can give fewer state-funded services," explains Kathy Fallon , human services practice area director at Public Consulting Group. "That can exacerbate the situation."
But a correlation between states' economic health and political affiliation may reflect economic factors beyond those explained by political philosophy.
"If red states pay less in taxes than they receive in benefits, that's because they are generally poorer and program rules are progressive — not because they are 'takers' while blue states are 'donors' in any value-laden sense," says Mark Shepard , assistant professor at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and faculty research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).
Last Updated: 4/2/2023
Therefore. . . the question becomes are Republicans passing off a myth about who pays more taxes and receives more taxes? And why the 'discrepancy'? Are republicans and conservatives manipulating their citizens?
California is number 48 on the list!
Note: This graph makes the point that is is FUTILE for states to try to SIT IN JUDGEMENT OF EACH OTHER! Especially red states that always heave stones at their 'brethren' blue states about dependence on the government.
I bet that "folks" won't answer. But, I see you have time to chime in. So now where will you like to go from there?
States don't pay any money to the federal government.
Yes:
What is the myth? I just told you why the discrepancy. What manipulation?
I can't answer for Krishna, I can only observe that you seldom answer questions asked.
I'm certainly not demanding your taxes be raised.
What does any of that actually have to do with you being liberal or anybody interfering with your right to be liberal or anybody interfering with your right to go make your own money?
Oh wait.... it has nothing to do with any of that. It's just another CB diversion.
Does that mean you're going to stop now?
[deleted]
Not to mention government itself
I don't have to answer any of your questions at all. Because I am independent of you. Furthermore, I am not petty and repetitive like SOME conservatives and SOME MAGA persist in being. All I will say is SOME conservatives and Some MAGA - y'all do you and I will do me. Damn all this meaningless WHINING about petty shit that at the end of the day is just noise.
BTW, I don't endlessly remind conservatives of those many comment 'drive-bys' and dismissiveness on display when you all can't muster up a reply or otherwise choose it is safer to not respond or the reply is a non-sequitar answer or 'dizzying new round of a question to a question nonsense. Why not? Because it don't matter as it is clear y'all don't plan to answer.
Of course not. You like to ask others questions while under no obligation to answer theirs.
Yes, we see that.
Then don't answer. For you my questions going forward will be fewer and even then I won't expect you to answer any because you don't generally do so properly anyway. Now go ahead with your comeback because you seem to need it. I will not reply to you on this thread which is at this point a distraction and annoying.
I don’t have any numbers, but your conversations seem to be on the decline with others.
Retort away. It's futile, nevertheless:
Red States Lead With Federal Dependence
Democratic-leaning blue states tend to be wealthier and pay more to the federal government than they get. In contrast, Republican-leaning red states tend to have less wealth and receive more federal government funds than they pay. In the MoneyGeek rankings,
7 of the 10 most dependent states are considered red states.
Now, about now, I have come to expect silence or dismissive/diminishing comments, or a "routine" drive-by from some conservatives at this point.
You have just said these state to state comparisons are "futile".
You also have yet to explain what they have to do with any of your other "points".
The comparisons ARE futile, which is why I pulled the graph up so MAGA can get off the propaganda about red-state being "parent" to the nation. Red states talk too damn much, too often, and too loud! Red states are 'feeding' anybody any more than blue states are aiding in feeding them! We're all in this together - the way it should be before red-states started trying to demonize and divide the country into little jealous pockets of envy and covetousness! Don't be greedy red states! It's not a good look. Especially if y'all have to tell untruths about it!
Then you should probably not have brought them up.
Who... on this seed... has said anything like that?
Why are you so desperate to change the subject?
Who has said that?
States don’t pay anything to the federal government.
You damn well know that the citizens and businesses of every state pay into federal coffers, including income taxes, tariffs, social security, medicare, etc etc and that those states and their citizens receive funding for state services and individual benefits back from the federal government. You know that proportionally blue states pay more in and get less out than red ones.
What's your point? Only infantile quibble?
Yes, Individuals and businesses, not states pay taxes to the Feds.
Feds also pay their employees on military bases disproportionately located in the South and West.
They also pay for contracts supporting the military disproportionately located in the South and West.
Again, states pay nothing to the Feds.
That the analysis that I commented on was shallow and essentially meaningless.
Is that really how you justify rank trolling?
Not trying to pull rank, just acknowledging the previous sloppy analysis.
Weak.
The entire seeded article is a sweeping generalization.
The writer repeatedly says that the people who are "cheering" on Hamas are the same people who were the most vocal about social justice. To say that is a broad brush is an understatement. For all the writer of this article knows, the people that were most vocal about social justice in America could be horrified by the anti-semitism. Indeed, many Jews have been in the forefront of social justice efforts.
The article is a weak attempt at a "gotcha" hit piece.
I also find it laughable that the writer contends that a social justice movement in America commenced just 15 years ago. That is ludicrous.
You should know.
The entire seeded article is a sweeping generalization.
The writer repeatedly says that the people who are "cheering" on Hamas are the same people who were the most vocal about social justice.
Exactly. (Although after many years-- heck, decades even) I have noticed that for some reason generalizations (On "both sides of the aisle) seem to be much more common on social media than in conversations with my friends off-line.
Perhaps offline I'm "hangin with the wrong crowd?")
But based upon much of what I've seen on social media outlets-- its pretty convincing that Jews are the cause of much of what's wrong in the world!
Protestors chanting "Jews Will Not replace Us"
Overstatement, but not wholly untrue.
Fair statement.
Then, however... he loses his mind....
Oh FFS. Don't ever accuse anybody else of emotional terrorism if you're willing to pull a stunt like this.
In case there was any doubt about how crazy this guy is, he's running up the score to make it completely clear.
c ase there was any doubt about how crazy this guy is, he's running up the score to make it completely clear.
Where did he ever get that idea from....
Colorado Boulder Ethnic Studies Dept:
"Starting October 7, 2023 we witness another unprecedented genocidal attack on the Palestinian people... As a dept whose work is informed by intersectional, anti-racist, and decolonial feminist, queer, and trans scholarship and activism..."
"The Jewish house on Cornell is yet another literal and symbolic form of apartheid and genocide on campus. It stands on land forcibly stolen from Native people who had their identity erased. It enforces strict dietary and religious customs. In my opinion it should be torn down and the illegal settlers relocated."
Wow! I respect the condemnation of violence but notice that in that entire Palestinian Support Statement not once was Hamas or what they actually did mentioned. Had Hamas not slaughtered 1,400 Israeli civilians in the most evil and brutal of ways on October 7, there would not be the current violence in Gaza. How is that so difficult to understand for supposedly educated people?
[deleted]
Social Justice is not defined, and no specific person is identified in this article. No sources are cited. So there’s no way to judge from it’s content whether or not support for Palestinians or Hamas has any connection to social justice.
An actual fact people can look at is that our House of Representatives passed a resolution supporting Israel . The vote was 412-10. That’s not perfect support, but I think it falls well within the usual standards for “bipartisan.”