Shep Smith: Journalists are not the enemy of the people

@coldjoint,

IN THE BATTLE OF WITS

glitterbag =1----Pinky = 0

Ya gotta admit, on pure phrase alone she ran a coupla rings around yer head.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

All these folks who ridicule 'victimhood' as some sort of liberal or democrat boo hoo cry baby weakness ARE outraged over the fact that baby hands fat ass New York puff ball can't take a punch. Presidential harassment..oh the outrage oh the horror oh the hypocrisy. Sour grapes, sore heads, you just don't want to admit you supported a demented fabulist who insists on being the center of attention 24/7 and his only motivation is revenge, obliteration and payback upon anyone who doesn't worship at the flame of lamp of bullshit, his wisdom, bask in his glory with reverence and gratitude. Or in other words, you folks are cult members......try not to drink the kool-aid, it will. not be good for you. Nobody wants you to perish.

The cult of victimhood emerges from a fundamental sense that people who suffer due to wrongdoing by others are entitled to some form of compensation. As a result, people who seek compensation may develop strategies to discover their own victimization in order to gain entitlements.

It is not rocket science.

The question is whether compensation for victimization (social injustice) within a paradigm of economic exploitation/abuse/unsustainability is actually just at all.

E.g. if by robbing the rich and giving to the poor, Robin Hood stimulates an economic system that systematically destroys Sherwood Forest and fuels further economic patterns of subjugation/exploitation; then where is the justice in redistributing the spoils of the bad economy?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

As a result, people who seek compensation may develop strategies to discover their own victimization in order to gain entitlements.

These people are exploited by people that are willing to ignore them after they gain power. Almost every Democratic administration has proven that, and quite a few Republican ones.

People that buy into the most outrageous examples suffer from manufactured guilt and believe propaganda with communist overtones that complete control by the government can somehow save these "victims". It would only make things worse, which is their endgame anyway.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

These people are exploited by people that are willing to ignore them after they gain power. Almost every Democratic administration has proven that, and quite a few Republican ones.

People that buy into the most outrageous examples suffer from manufactured guilt and believe propaganda with communist overtones that complete control by the government can somehow save these "victims". It would only make things worse, which is their endgame anyway.

People who don't have a vision of how to achieve a just world deserve to feel guilty. It is one thing to have a vision for justice and yet be stifled by others who simply don't care; and it is something else entirely to not care about injustice because you've become accepting of a world that privileges you at the expense of others.

The US republic is based on the utopian ideals of Christians who believed that Holy Spirit would guide free people to live righteously and thus manifest a good society. It's one thing to lament that social injustices have occurred despite these Christian ideals, and it is something else to just say, "that's the way things worked out and get over it."

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

E.g. if by robbing the rich and giving to the poor, Robin Hood stimulates an economic system that systematically destroys Sherwood Forest and fuels further economic patterns of subjugation/exploitation; then where is the justice in redistributing the spoils of the bad economy?

My understanding of the Robin Hood story was that he stole back the unjust taxes that crippled the working and the poor. He gave back what was rightfully theirs, not redistributing a bad economy.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

livinglava wrote:
E.g. if by robbing the rich and giving to the poor, Robin Hood stimulates an economic system that systematically destroys Sherwood Forest and fuels further economic patterns of subjugation/exploitation; then where is the justice in redistributing the spoils of the bad economy?

My understanding of the Robin Hood story was that he stole back the unjust taxes that crippled the working and the poor. He gave back what was rightfully theirs, not redistributing a bad economy.

Did you get my point with the analogy or not?

I.e. where is the justice in redistributing the spoils of a bad economy?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

No, I do not get what you're trying to say.

In the fable, justice is served by returning assets back to the people from which they were stolen. This allows a free market where people can choose to spend or save for the future. It helps to restore a good economy, not strengthen a bad one.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

No, I do not get what you're trying to say.

In the fable, justice is served by returning assets back to the people from which they were stolen. This allows a free market where people can choose to spend or save for the future. It helps to restore a good economy, not strengthen a bad one.

I'll say it a third time:

I.e. where is the justice in redistributing the spoils of a bad economy?

Can you just answer that question without debating about the details of the Robin Hood analogy?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

You're the one whose analogy is wrong.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

You're the one whose analogy is wrong.

For some reason you are using the analogy as a distraction from the point I was making, and I suspect it's because my point is valid but something you don't want to deal with.

If people who seek social justice do so by redistributing the spoils of a bad economy, they become complicit in that economy.

As such, it doesn't make sense to argue for job and income equality within an economic system that is fundamentally exploitative and unsustainable.

It makes more sense to make the economy non-exploitative and sustainable, and seek justice within the good economy that follows the bad ones.

Otherwise it's like arguing for gender equality within the slave plantation. You're worried about equal pay for male and female slave holders while the whip is still cracking outside and the cotton (or other cash crop) is stripping the soil of its nutrients.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

I.e. where is the justice in redistributing the spoils of a bad economy?

It's been proven in communist countries, that it doesn't work. Most in this world live in capitalistic ones; even Russia and China are changing to private ownership of business. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2017/09/29/russia-has-the-fastest-growing-number-of-millionaires-in-the-world-a59113

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
I.e. where is the justice in redistributing the spoils of a bad economy?

It's been proven in communist countries, that it doesn't work. Most in this world live in capitalistic ones; even Russia and China are changing to private ownership of business. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2017/09/29/russia-has-the-fastest-growing-number-of-millionaires-in-the-world-a59113

What's your point? Are you trying to say that exploitation and unsustainability are inevitable with capitalism and because capitalism is popular, we should just accept unethical economic practices?

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Mostly because it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

And also it's because I think you're bat **** crazy. You argue just to argue. You think you're being so very esoteric and it's comical how you think that some one is going to agree with your bat **** crazy diatribe.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

Mostly because it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

And also it's because I think you're bat **** crazy. You argue just to argue. You think you're being so very esoteric and it's comical how you think that some one is going to agree with your bat **** crazy diatribe.

You just don't want to deal with points I make when they conflict with your political interests.

You just can't admit that it's 'bat ****' wrong/unethical to have an economy that overpays men with the spoils of exploitative business and then argue that women should get equal pay and privileges to the men.

The economy is harming the climate, but you want equal rights to consume and do all the things that it produces.

There are many ways in which liberty is curtailed to support businesses that don't care how they make their money, but your concern is that some people don't get equal access to that dirty money.

Driving around and shopping has been systematically destroying the environment and the climate for a century, but you just think it's unfair that some people have made more money than others with it.

How dare you call me, 'bat **** crazy,' when I am making a case for economic sanity? You are making a case for equality among the insane.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Again, wrong thread.

Is that not something you can comprehend?

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

Again, wrong thread.

Is that not something you can comprehend?

If that was your real reason, you would never have posted post# 6,915,073.

You start arguing and then when you don't want to admit something, you make up a fake reason to distract from the thing you don't want to admit.

I guess some people just can't engage in honest discussion.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Sure, engage in honest communication. But you want to turn a thread about media into something else. I don't believe you have a sound argument, therefore I will not engage in your bat **** crazy diatribe.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

Sure, engage in honest communication. But you want to turn a thread about media into something else. I don't believe you have a sound argument, therefore I will not engage in your bat **** crazy diatribe.

The original post of mine that you responded to was itself a response to Glitterbag's post # 6,914,278, which had nothing to do with the thread topic.

You did not complain about that post or any of the other three responses to it.

You are just using that as an excuse now to avoid the valid point that I made about pursuing equality within a bad economy because you are a petty person who avoids allowing someone to make their point, even though it's valid.

You're a sadist and I should have thought of that before engaging in discussion with you.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

https://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

the valid point that I made about pursuing equality within a bad economy

Your statement has no basis in fact or common sense. There are good reasons why college grads make more money than non-grads. There's good reason why competition in any economy is the best policy. Equality is a failed theory proven by Russia and China. They now realize the mistakes of their past, and are now allowing private ownership of business. China's uncontrolled economy has now polluted most of their fresh water resources, and their air. https://www.scmp.com/topics/beijing-air-pollution Government ownership and control of the economy is always a bad idea in trying to achieve "equality." The best economic system in the world today are in the Scandinavian countries. They are fundamentally capitalistic, but shares their wealth with all their citizens through high taxes. They are considered the happiest people in the world.

1 Reply

Shep Smith: Journalists are not the enemy of the people

Quick Links

My Account

able2know