Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Mr. Deez, Feb 8, 2012.
A Canadian apologizes
Right. As I posted somewhere else, the left wanted Merrick Garland on the Bench. If Trump nominated him, the left would have gone after Garland. Their hypocrisy and double standards never disappoint.
Sharpton (of all people) took the stand to testify about "policing"
Whole thing is ~13:45
Not the Bee
Sometimes when you live by woke stupidity, you also die by woke stupidity. Link.
Good story. That piece of **** reporter got what was coming to him.
One of my favorite kinds of stories. Some self-righteous handjob tries to ruin somebody who did a good thing because he's jealous of the attention that person is getting, and somebody else is able to come along and take a piss on said handjob in the same manner. It's a beautiful thing.
I don't understand why a reporter would want to tear down the guy who is donating the money. Seriously, he could have written a positive, feel good story and everybody would have been fine with it because that's what the story is.
Is it jealousy and self righteousness as you say? I can see that. But I also wonder if it can be viewed through a different lens. Is it just the predilection of modern day reporters to always want to dig up dirt and write, for lack of a better term, gossipy stories about people? Seriously, what percentage of "news" stories these days stick to the dispassionately answering facts of who, what, when, where, and why?
The journalist in question seemed genuinely surprised that he got terminated, and in fact said he felt "abandoned" by the newspaper. That really is pretty self absorbed, to **** on a subject of your reporting via combing his old social media, and then be surprised when you get the same treatment.
Frankly, I hope more reporters get this kind of treatment after engaging in it themselves. It might make some of them begin to question the value of seeking to crap on anybody they are writing about. Of course, it might just make them embrace modern PC wokeness even more tightly. That would be foolish because in woke culture, you never know when something you said 10 years ago that was totally OK at the time will become verboten to the newspeak PC police. (Orwell really was spot on in many respects, wasn't he?)
You make a good point, and you could be right. However, at the end of the day, I think this douche wanted to attract attention to himself. He could have written a feel-good piece, but people wouldn't feel good about him. They'd feel good about the guy who donated all that cash. By trying to be a woke hero, he directed the glory to himself.
Of course, it's a foolish thing to do. All of wokeness is foolish. For a lot of young people, I think it's replacing Christianity as their core value. They have a right to do that. However, it creates a pretty rough world. The core of Christianity is the acceptance that nobody is perfect and that we all need forgiveness. That makes it possible for someone who's caught doing something bad to rehabilitate himself. If he sincerely apologizes, the "Christian" thing to do is forgive him as Christ forgives all and let it go. Christianity also follows largely objective rules that are codified in the Bible, so the standards are generally static.
If you reject that for wokeness, then the guiding principle becomes strict adherence to woke principles. Well, that doesn't leave much of a place for forgiveness or restoration, so the stakes of screwing up are a lot higher. That's why it's not enough to apologize. You have to self-flagellate until you adequately "atone." Furthermore, since there are no objective moral truths to wokeness, the goalposts are constantly moving, so you're even more likely to screw up, and since it's so unforgiving, if you're caught, you risk total and permanent destruction. And strangely, though the goalposts are moving, the judgment doesn't seem to account for it, so if you say something that wasn't "offensive" at the time you said it but becomes offensive later, you'll get judged by contemporary standards, not the standards in place when you made the statement. That's a rough world to live in.
What's funny about it is that the same idiots who go for this world will criticize traditional religion for being too "judgy" and strict. It just shows that the elimination of religion usually leads not to more freedom and liberty but to something far more oppressive.
Woke people seem to forget the golden rule. This journalist definitely did. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The journalist felt the sharp end of that time honored saying as the readers of the paper applied it to him.
I agree, but keep in mind that the Golden Rule is heavily associated with traditional religion and specifically Christianity in the West. I'm not saying a secular person necessarily rejects the Golden Rule, but a woke person isn't really secular. He's woke, and woke principles will always trump some old religious construct like the Golden Rule.
Here is the defense of the journalist published by a former employer (buzz feed):
A few points both damning and exculpatory:
- he says he was told by the editors to do it
- he claims he didn’t think it would be a large backlash on King (just some additional background color on the guy)
- he is surprised he got the same treatment because he is “woke” and on the good side (my take on his comments). Also claims his tweets were taken out of context (LOL)
A Texas Democratic judge was forced to apologize mocking Greg Abbott's disability --said Abbott "hates trees because one fell on him."
Democratic judge apologizes for joke about Texas governor's disability
There is no forgiveness in Woke Religion. Woke Religion is also called Intersectionality or Critical Race Theory.
There is no absolution of guilt. If you pursue forgiveness or absolution it merely makes you more guilty. It is why these people eat their own. There is only judgment upon judgment. You judge others as guilty until you yourself are judged.
That is also an attribute of the Left since the French Revolution. Robespierre and all that.
That's his best defense.
If you endorse and join an oppressive structure, anything perceived as disloyal will result in punishment. That's how they maintain discipline and stomp out dissent. Ernst Röhm was a committed Nazi and a loyal ally of Hitler from the beging (was involved in the Beer Hall Putsch, etc.), but once there was even a hint of disagreement, Röhm's loyalty was worthless, and Hitler wasted his ***. Don't think the woke idiots are any less oppressive and strict than Nazis were. The only difference is that they don't hold power.
Context doesn't matter.
The higher ups at the newspaper have to approve something being published. They should be punished as well.
And if they were doing a background check, which is BS, how had they not done the same background check on the writer?
Trudeau in full black face arms hands and knees
He sure did black face etc a lot but that is not racist?
There is a cable show called "Preacher" where God has become so frustrated with human behavior he has decided to burn it all down and just try again later
Real life has to be getting tantalizingly close
And another. The parents of these 3 boys should demand that the girl be expelled and/or charged. And perhaps file a civil action
I can't remember the last actual hate crime of white against black.
From blacks hanging nooses on their own doors or the black professor who spray painted racist language on his own door or the black woman who said she was harassed at a gas station by white Trump supporters. How many blacks have said the police made racist statements during traffic stops only to have that shown to be lie by dash or body cams??
Not to mention the most famous hate crime of all, Jussie Smollet.
Are there real white against black hate crimes> I am sure there are and vice versa
but the fake ones far far out number the real ones.
I think I read it here first but it appears demand for race crimes exceed supply!