What a racist, unpatriotic loser …

Husker Hank

College Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Jul 29, 2009
24,070
25,598
113
acb16a1a28111400980006edb64419c5.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bobfather

cavalot

Head Coach
Gold Member
Oct 3, 2003
12,643
9,320
113
How about this guy? Despite having been an active slave holder for 56 years, George Washington struggled with the institution of slavery and spoke frequently of his desire to end the practice. At the end of his life, Washington made the decision to free all his slaves in his 1799 will - the only slave-holding Founding Father to do so. Damn this social justice warrior... Who the F^#* does he think he is?
p00kew.jpg
 

Jaemekon

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Apr 23, 2007
5,324
5,097
113
Wait is it bad to be a warrior for social justice?

Was this guy bad?

Martin_Luther_King%2C_Jr..jpg

The current breed of "social justice warrior", is typically a self righteous prick, a virtue signaling hypocrite, an attention whore.

Mlk was an ok dude, Gandi was an ok dude, GW's was an ok dude, abe was an ok dude.

What we have now, is just a strange collection of religious zealots. I don't believe in their religion, and when people don't agree with their "message", they call you a racist. They seem to piggyback off of actual social justice warriors, and the accomplishments of hard working warriors of the past.

The mob is not out for actual justice, just power.
 

HUSKERinLA

College Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Nov 25, 2007
21,241
24,814
113
The current breed of "social justice warrior", is typically a self righteous prick, a virtue signaling hypocrite, an attention whore.

Mlk was an ok dude, Gandi was an ok dude, GW's was an ok dude, abe was an ok dude.

What we have now, is just a strange collection of religious zealots. I don't believe in their religion, and when people don't agree with their "message", they call you a racist. They seem to piggyback off of actual social justice warriors, and the accomplishments of hard working warriors of the past.

The mob is not out for actual justice, just power.
I think this is true of some and not true of some.

Clearly, there is a segment of “woke” SJWs who have adopted a crazy, “wokism”-religious-like posture. They are loud and attract a lot of attention from both sides. To me it ventures into crazy when it becomes intolerant of opposing viewpoints and/or argues for “revenge discrimination.”

However, as a flaming liberal who operates in these circles:

* I don’t believe this wackjob element represents a majority of Democratic voters.

* I don’t believe this wackjob element represents a majority of Democratic elected officials.

* I don’t believe this wackjob element represents a majority of liberals.

* I don’t believe this wackjob element represents a majority of people interested in social justice.

The GOP and conservative media have a vested interest in making conservative voters/viewers believe that this group of wackjobs is larger than it is because it gives conservative voters something to vote against and it gives conservative viewers a reason not to watch real news outlets.

At the same time, wackjob SJWs — even though they are smaller than GOP and conservative media make them out to be — they are a legitimate concern and a growing segment because they represent a dangerous, radical ideology. But the GOP has (for now) become more crazy and is a more dangerous threat to American democracy because their wackjob element is larger and has more power.

What we really need is for more conservatives to wake up to the insanity of the GOP and conservative media and to come over to the Democrats (even if temporarily) to kill off the anti-American insanity in the GOP and to tamp down the smaller crazy within the Democratic Party.

I like to refer to myself as “woke” but not “wokist.”

And to me, this is the most important distinction and the most important place to be in American politics.
 

Jaemekon

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Apr 23, 2007
5,324
5,097
113
I think this is true of some and not true of some.

Clearly, there is a segment of “woke” SJWs who have adopted a crazy, “wokism”-religious-like posture. They are loud and attract a lot of attention from both sides. To me it ventures into crazy when it becomes intolerant of opposing viewpoints and/or argues for “revenge discrimination.”

However, as a flaming liberal who operates in these circles:

* I don’t believe this wackjob element represents a majority of Democratic voters.

* I don’t believe this wackjob element represents a majority of Democratic elected officials.

* I don’t believe this wackjob element represents a majority of liberals.

* I don’t believe this wackjob element represents a majority of people interested in social justice.

The GOP and conservative media have a vested interest in making conservative voters/viewers believe that this group of wackjobs is larger than it is because it gives conservative voters something to vote against and it gives conservative viewers a reason not to watch real news outlets.

At the same time, wackjob SJWs — even though they are smaller than GOP and conservative media make them out to be — they are a legitimate concern and a growing segment because they represent a dangerous, radical ideology. But the GOP has (for now) become more crazy and is a more dangerous threat to American democracy because their wackjob element is larger and has more power.

What we really need is for more conservatives to wake up to the insanity of the GOP and conservative media and to come over to the Democrats (even if temporarily) to kill off the anti-American insanity in the GOP and to tamp down the smaller crazy within the Democratic Party.

I like to refer to myself as “woke” but not “wokist.”

And to me, this is the most important distinction and the most important place to be in American politics.

I would never call myself "woke", or any variation of it. I used to think of myself as liberal, I can't call myself that anymore, because the term now has a different meaning I guess.

I would say I am "anti-establishment", even to my own detriment. Mainstream shit, pop culture shit, I typically ignore or rag on it. I think one of my biggest fears is to be a member of the herd, so I fight it.

I like what I like, and most other humans all like the same shit. I also don't take people seriously, especially when they are the top of their field. For example, you could offer me a free trip to anywhere to meet the president (I don't care which one), and I'm going to hard pass on it. I don't care who the president is, and I don't care to meet him, for any reason.

I think most humans are predictable on a large scale, the herd moves as one.

I want people to be free, I want people to make their own choices, I want folks to get back to living, life is too short to worry, if it gets shortened even more by me living my way, so be it.

I don't like to be told what to do. And the more people tell me what to do, the more I push against it, even if I know it's right. I just don't want someone to have the satisfaction of telling me to do something, and then I do it.

I probably didn't answer your question, so here is a fun gif...

MediocreUnhappyAmazontreeboa-size_restricted.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim14510

cavalot

Head Coach
Gold Member
Oct 3, 2003
12,643
9,320
113
The current breed of "social justice warrior", is typically a self righteous prick, a virtue signaling hypocrite, an attention whore.

Mlk was an ok dude, Gandi was an ok dude, GW's was an ok dude, abe was an ok dude.

What we have now, is just a strange collection of religious zealots. I don't believe in their religion, and when people don't agree with their "message", they call you a racist. They seem to piggyback off of actual social justice warriors, and the accomplishments of hard working warriors of the past.

The mob is not out for actual justice, just power.
I assume your talking about both sides of the isle? Especially with the religious zealots
 
  • Like
Reactions: philosophusker

Jaemekon

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Apr 23, 2007
5,324
5,097
113
I assume your talking about both sides of the isle? Especially with the religious zealots

This thread is specifically about the social justice warrior variety.

Yes, all religious zealots are a turn off to me.

People, don't feed me your propaganda, because...

CYyw.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: lipem and cavalot

nordakotahusker

Senior
Gold Member
Nov 2, 2001
2,680
2,671
113
How about this guy? Despite having been an active slave holder for 56 years, George Washington struggled with the institution of slavery and spoke frequently of his desire to end the practice. At the end of his life, Washington made the decision to free all his slaves in his 1799 will - the only slave-holding Founding Father to do so. Damn this social justice warrior... Who the F^#* does he think he is?
p00kew.jpg


Fvcker owned slaves. All references to the man should be stricken from the record. All statues removed and destroyed. He has no place in our history.

Why would you mention the name of such a scourge to society?
 

nordakotahusker

Senior
Gold Member
Nov 2, 2001
2,680
2,671
113
I think this is true of some and not true of some.

Clearly, there is a segment of “woke” SJWs who have adopted a crazy, “wokism”-religious-like posture. They are loud and attract a lot of attention from both sides. To me it ventures into crazy when it becomes intolerant of opposing viewpoints and/or argues for “revenge discrimination.”

However, as a flaming liberal who operates in these circles:

* I don’t believe this wackjob element represents a majority of Democratic voters.

* I don’t believe this wackjob element represents a majority of Democratic elected officials.

* I don’t believe this wackjob element represents a majority of liberals.

* I don’t believe this wackjob element represents a majority of people interested in social justice.

The GOP and conservative media have a vested interest in making conservative voters/viewers believe that this group of wackjobs is larger than it is because it gives conservative voters something to vote against and it gives conservative viewers a reason not to watch real news outlets.

At the same time, wackjob SJWs — even though they are smaller than GOP and conservative media make them out to be — they are a legitimate concern and a growing segment because they represent a dangerous, radical ideology. But the GOP has (for now) become more crazy and is a more dangerous threat to American democracy because their wackjob element is larger and has more power.

What we really need is for more conservatives to wake up to the insanity of the GOP and conservative media and to come over to the Democrats (even if temporarily) to kill off the anti-American insanity in the GOP and to tamp down the smaller crazy within the Democratic Party.

I like to refer to myself as “woke” but not “wokist.”

And to me, this is the most important distinction and the most important place to be in American politics.


I hope you recognize that the MSM pushes an identical agenda against the right. There aren't nearly as many white supremacists in this country as Don Lemon and Brian Stelter would have you believe.

Unfortunately, that shit sells.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bobfather and lipem

philosophusker

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jan 16, 2004
15,085
18,205
113
Jonesboro, Arkansas (York, NE originally)
I used to think of myself as liberal, I can't call myself that anymore, because the term now has a different meaning I guess.
The term does not have a different meaning. Conservatives have tried to poison the word so people like you would become ashamed of it. But the word itself still has the same meaning. Just look it up in Websters for a refresher. Cons want so badly to re-write the term liberal, don't fall for it.

Liberal:

  1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
  2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

Pubs will laugh at those definitions and say the horrible libs are not like that. But they are the ones that call us liberals. It is they that don't understand the definition. The definition of liberal was established long before these current Trumper idiots were born.

The same Trumpturd Pubs who want you to be ashamed of the word liberal, voted for Donald Trump. They are absolute dumbasses. Don't listen to them. They are the same unpatriotic assholes in this thread that are rooting against American athletes in the olympics.
 
Last edited:

3andsomedust

Junior
Gold Member
Jul 5, 2001
1,749
1,072
113
The term does not have a different meaning. Conservatives have tried to poison the word so people like you would become ashamed of it. But the word itself still has the same meaning. Just look it up in Websters for a refresher. Cons want so badly to re-write the term liberal, don't fall for it.

Liberal:

  1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
  2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

Pubs will laugh at those definitions and say the horrible libs are not like that. But they are the ones that call us liberals. It is they that don't understand the definition. The definition of liberal was established long before these current Trumper idiots were born.

The same Trumpturd Pubs who want you to be ashamed of the word liberal, voted for Donald Trump. They are absolute dumbasses. Don't listen to them. They are the same unpatriotic assholes in this thread that are rooting against American athletes in the olympics.
The definition you are posting is one that pertains to "classical" liberals...not the liberal-progressives we know today. Classical liberals have far more in common with modern-day conservatives than modern-day liberal progressives.

GTFO with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaemekon

whiteshoes97

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 30, 2004
12,925
10,790
113
The definition you are posting is one that pertains to "classical" liberals...not the liberal-progressives we know today. Classical liberals have far more in common with modern-day conservatives than modern-day liberal progressives.

GTFO with this.
Exactly. “Liberals” today cheer on and fully support corporate/government alliances that control the flow of information, and have zero tolerance for those that question their bullshit woke neurosis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3andsomedust

philosophusker

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jan 16, 2004
15,085
18,205
113
Jonesboro, Arkansas (York, NE originally)
Exactly. “Liberals” today cheer on and fully support corporate/government alliances that control the flow of information, and have zero tolerance for those that question their bullshit woke neurosis.
Then don't call us liberals. It's not really that hard.

If the definition doesn't fit, don't call me a liberal. But you don't get to change the definition. Jesus.

"These liberals don't act anything like the classic definition of liberal. Damn liberals."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaemekon

Jaemekon

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Apr 23, 2007
5,324
5,097
113
The term does not have a different meaning. Conservatives have tried to poison the word so people like you would become ashamed of it. But the word itself still has the same meaning. Just look it up in Websters for a refresher. Cons want so badly to re-write the term liberal, don't fall for it.

Liberal:

  1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
  2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

Pubs will laugh at those definitions and say the horrible libs are not like that. But they are the ones that call us liberals. It is they that don't understand the definition. The definition of liberal was established long before these current Trumper idiots were born.

The same Trumpturd Pubs who want you to be ashamed of the word liberal, voted for Donald Trump. They are absolute dumbasses. Don't listen to them. They are the same unpatriotic assholes in this thread that are rooting against American athletes in the olympics.

I would like to just keep things simple, I still believe myself to be a "classic liberal". We can just add the caveat that I am also, anti-establishment.

I believe in individual freedom, choice, and rights.

Quick question, if you don't think of yourself as liberal, then are you a conservative?
 
  • Like
Reactions: philosophusker

philosophusker

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jan 16, 2004
15,085
18,205
113
Jonesboro, Arkansas (York, NE originally)
I would like to just keep things simple, I still believe myself to be a "classic liberal". We can just add the caveat that I am also, anti-establishment.

I believe in individual freedom, choice, and rights.

Quick question, if you don't think of yourself as liberal, then are you a conservative?
I don't like labels. But if we must, then I would be liberal on some issues (abortion), moderate on some issues (fiscal stuff) and conservative on others (I am pro capital punishment)

Overall I lean slightly left so I am a member of the Dem party. I could just as easily be an independent who usually votes Democrat though.

I think the GOP are nuts, especially since they voted in a POS like Trump to office, so I could never be a member of that party unless they went through a huge reformation.

I want nothing to do with a party that thinks the insurrection was a peaceful demonstration. Dems have their problems, but nowhere near the problems of the GOP.

Case in point: Moderate pubs are outcasts and called Rinos by the majority of the GOP. Moderate Dems are elected President by their party.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jaemekon