The left eats its own, and liberals don’t like it much at all

[Wilikon]

It has been apparent for some time that the subset of liberals consumed with the pursuit of “social justice,” particularly the feminist left, are so starved for victories that they will turn on anyone for a quick boost of self-esteem. The hard targets, those groups composed of individuals who are ideologically opposed to the modern social justice program, long ago stopped paying attention to the minor grievances that occupy the minds of campus feminists. As such, the only targets of opportunity left are of a softer variety.

It was this impulse that led the mob to attack an astrophysicist who had just managed a spectacular feat of engineering by landing a probe on a comet some 310 million miles from Earth for wearing a shirt they deemed inappropriate. It turns out that this offensive shirt, covered as it was with comic book images of women in provocative poses, was a handmade gift from a female friend. That was of no matter to the tribe. This accomplished individual was made to cry on camera as he apologized for offending only the most fragile sensibilities.

It was this impulse that forced Time magazine to apologize to its readers after it conducted a survey and discovered that the word “feminism” is tarnished beyond repair. By a mile, Time found that its readership believed that this word more than any other had outlived its usefulness. That reality was so offensive to the easily-offended that they demanded Time retract its discovery. This magazine, too, eventually accepted its role in the dock of a familiar show trial.

And it was this impulse that prompted a group of delicate souls to chase the director Joss Whedon off Twitter after he failed to observe properly the tenets of religious feminism in the film Avengers: Age of Ultron.

“Whedon’s departure did create a wave of speculation on Twitter that he closed his account because of ‘death threats,’” Time magazine reported. “A search of tweets directed at him over the past week definitely turned up some deep ugliness, with some of the abusive users urging him to ‘die’ or ‘commit suicide’ over plot points they didn’t like in Age of Ultron.”


The most abusive bullying came from viewers who objected to Black Widow’s tentative relationship with The Hulk’s Bruce Banner and another scene in which she was briefly captured by Ultron. There was also anger about how he depicted Quicksilver and a number of other plot points that “fans” of this comic book title apparently felt justified harassment. Filtered out and pasted together, as some on Twitter have done, it looks like significant vitriol – but compared to the immense volume of conversation about this film on the social media platform, it’s really background static.



It is no coincidence that Whedon, Time, and a sensitive, bookish scientist were all creatures of the left. They are the only people still listening to the mob of disaffected and tortured feminists for whom the only measure of self-worth they have left is their collection of scalps.

But this latest “victory” may be one of feminism’s last. They seem to have broken the backs of their otherwise tolerant ideological compatriots.

“Whedon is just one of many celebrities to have quit the social media service, but will be missed more than most,” The Verge’s Rich McCormick wrote. “In addition to his comedic output, he has been a staunch and vocal supporter of people such as Anita Sarkeesian who have faced systematic campaigns of online harassment. It’s not clear whether similar harassment, his relationship with movie executives and their contracts, or simple fatigue drove Whedon from the service, but with his disappearance, we’ve lost one of Twitter’s most respectful and relatable public figures.”

Even the comedian Paton Oswalt has had it with the mob. No conservative, Oswalt channeled the worst insult he could muster when he learned that the social justice police had run Whedon out of town: “Tea Party.”

“Yep. There is a ‘Tea Party’ equivalent of progressivism/liberalism,” he wrote. “And they just chased Joss Whedon off Twitter.”

We are witnessing soft attacks on soft targets met with equally soft pushback. This dynamic, while in its infancy, is nevertheless worth watching. This might be the beginning of the end of another period of collective hysteria in American history. It couldn’t come soon enough.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/05/the-left-eats-its-own-and-liberals-dont-like-it-much-at-all/

[RodeoX]

I think we will see more and more of this as we open up to third, forth, fifth, parties. Last election cycle it was republicans eating their own, now the left's turn?

P.S. Is that a hoop snake? In Missouri they are legendary... literally.

[Wilikon]

I think we will see more and more of this as we open up to third, forth, fifth, parties. Last election cycle it was republicans eating their own, now the left's turn?

P.S. Is that a hoop snake? In Missouri they are legendary... literally.

No it is not. It's a representation of a progressive's mind as an illustration for the topic at hand


 

[RodeoX]

Ah, here is a hoop snake. A lot alike?

[BADecker]

They might feel better if you give them conservatives for desert.   

[Wilikon]

Ah, here is a hoop snake. A lot alike?

Visually yes if it wasn't as real as the loch ness monster...

Progressives eating their own? Now that's something worth to talk about...

 

[BADecker]

Ah, here is a hoop snake. A lot alike?

Visually yes if it wasn't as real as the loch ness monster...

Progressives eating their own? Now that's something worth to talk about...

 

Reminds me of Progresso Soup.   

[Wilikon]

Garland: A Liberal’s Worst Nightmare



This past Sunday, the American Freedom Defense Initiative and its president, Pamela Geller, held a Muhammad art exhibit in a Garland, Texas community center. Two radical Islamists — Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi — drove up to the entrance, got out of their car, and started shooting, wounding a security guard before a Garland Police officer shot and killed them both. This is a terrible story for obvious reasons. In many ways, it’s an even worse story for liberals. Here are just a few examples of why.

The First Amendment: From efforts to stifle debates and cancel “American Sniper” on college campuses, to calling “thug” the new n-word, liberals are constantly trying to shut down and/or chill free speech. Every day, more words and ideas are offensive to them and, therefore, cannot be used. Cartoons and drawings of Muhammad are a grave insult to Muslims, so liberals feel that they should not be shown. Whereas many of us feel that the First Amendment protects all types of speech, even inflammatory speech, people like New York Times writer Rukmini Callimachi, take a very different view:

After “Free speech aside,” the rest of her tweet is meaningless.

The Second Amendment: The vast majority of liberals do not like guns and would prefer more stringent gun control. Many would eliminate the right to keep and bear arms altogether. In “Guns: The Difference Between Garland And Paris,” Breitbart News writer AWR Hawkins wrote:

There was no prolonged, two-day pursuit of attackers, nor were there unarmed police officers dodging bullets on their bicycles. But there were plenty of guns in the hands of good guys who were keeping watch over the cartoon contest and who were charged with stopping any bad guys with guns who might show up.

In December 2012, NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne Lapierre famously said “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun” (Full disclosure: I work for NRA News). He was excoriated by the Left at the time, and many times since. Events like Garland continue to prove him correct.

School Security: Wayne LaPierre delivered that statement at a press conference after the horrific tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. He added:

“When it comes to our most beloved and vulnerable members of the American family – our children – we as a society leave them utterly defenseless,” LaPierre said, adding that [placing armed security at schools] will immediately make America’s schools safer.

Liberals tend to not want any armed presence on school grounds, be it by security or teachers. The Muhammad art exhibit was held on Garland school district property, and local police ended what could have been a mass slaughter of innocents. While the Garland, Texas officer was unarmed, in Argyle, Texas, they are armed:

ISIS: President Obama infamously called them “The JV team.” A February “DHS intelligence report warns of domestic right-wing terror threat,” which led to this from CNN:

Strangely, our federal government, as well as many liberals, have gone to great lengths to dissuade those (like me) who think ISIS is a real threat to our country. I contend that they are already here, and our open border does nothing to stem the flow of people who are bent on our destruction. Why does the Left seem so invested in trying to have us ignore this danger?

As I write this early on Tuesday morning, stories are just now coming out that ISIS has claimed responsibility for Garland. From FOX News:

The Islamic State terror group (ISIS) Tuesday issued a claim of responsibility for Sunday’s attack on a Texas cartoon contest featuring images of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

The claim was made in an audio message on the group’s Al Bayan radio station, based in the Syria city of Raqqa, which ISIS has proclaimed to be the capital of its self-proclaimed caliphate. It is the first time ISIS has taken credit for an attack on U.S. soil, though it was not immediately clear whether the group’s claim was an opportunistic co-opting of a so-called “lone wolf” attack as its own.

The message described the shooting suspects as “two soldiers of the caliphate” and added “We tell America that what is coming is more bitter and harder and you will see from the soldiers of the Caliphate what harms you.”

Texas: Let’s be honest, liberals hate Texas (not you, Austin). It represents so many things they despise: Freedom, guns, oil, the defeat of Wendy Davis, and so on. To that point, and as the perfect way to end this article, the (as usual) wise words of Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett:

https://ricochet.com/garland-liberals-worst-nightmare/

[Wilikon]

[Wilikon]

The attack highlights the tensions between protecting Americans’ treasured right to freedom of expression and preserving public safety, and it raises questions about when – if ever – government should intervene.

There are two exceptions from the constitutional right to free speech – defamation and the doctrine of “fighting words” or “incitement,” said John Szmer, an associate professor of political science and a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. …

Organizers knew, he said, that caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, which many Muslims consider insulting, have sparked violence before. In a recent case that drew worldwide attention, gunmen claiming allegiance with the self-described Islamic State killed 12 people in an attack on the Paris offices of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was known for satirical depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.

On the other hand, “fighting words can contradict the basic values that underlie freedom of speech,” Szmer said. “The views being expressed at the conference could be seen as social commentary. Political and social speech should be protected. You are arguably talking about social commentary.”

It’s unlikely that the issue will be tested in the Garland case, however, because prosecutors in Texas almost certainly won’t press charges against the conference organizers, he said.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/04/265537/after-texas-shooting-if-free-speech.html

**********************************************


Unusually Stupid McClatchy Column Gets Free Speech Wrong


They begin by pointing out that the organizers of the Muhammad Art Exhibit arranged for extra security, suggesting that because they contemplated the risk of violence that they should not have spoken. But how is that a just or relevant standard? Would Wise and Landay approach Russian gay rights protestors and tell them to shut up because they could predict a bloody, brutal response from thugs? Would they rebuke the organizers of May Day marches, which seem reliably to produce violence by some bad actors?

http://popehat.com/2015/05/04/unusually-stupid-mcclatchy-column-gets-free-speech-wrong/