The headline is a little clickbait-y, but the article is neutral. how do you associate one headline with the "SJW-side"?
I find your sneer about a "parliament" rather odd. It's not a "bogeyman" to note that people who generally take one side of an ideological issue will... generally take one side of an ideological issue. Yes, there are disagreements within teams, but it's not unfair to make general statements about ideological teams when those teams usually act like teams.
How many do I need to post to prove my point? Here's Arthur Chu, the self-described "social justice stormtrooper," again expressing the "SJW side": Reddit’s Terrorists Have Won: Ellen Pao and the Failure to Rebrand Web 2.0. A big feminist blog: Pao! Right in the Kisser: Reddit assholes celebrate CEO’s resignation after a week of abuse. SJWs Brianna Wu and Randi Harper are lining up just as one would expect. The NY Times puts their editorial view directly into the news. I'm sure there will be more in the coming days.
Thanks to Ellen Pao, Asian-Americans will no longer be saddled with the insidious stereotype of being bright, hardworking and competent.
Anybody know of $500k+ tech industry job openings for a lawsuit-happy SJW with no technical experience? Asking for a friend.
I do find it really, really strange that the SJW side is backing Pao here when the employee she fired is also a woman.
citation needed on this one. where is the SJW side that is backing Pao? unless SJW stands for Strawman Justice Warrior.
Link to Original Source
No money is not speech. It's money. Putting a limitation on campaign contribution in no way shape or form limits your speech.
Really? Citizens United was about some people who made a movie about Hillary Clinton. If the government forbids you to spend money on making a film (or publishing a book, putting up a website, or buying an ad, or making a sign, etc.), they are certainly limiting your speech.
And note that even the defenders of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that Citizens United overturned admitted in court that the law would have allowed the government to stop the publication of a book if it was about a candidate. If that isn't suppression of speech, what is?
I think there's a basic error in this approach. It assumes that government can and will run better with "big money" taken out of campaigning. But there's a lot of money given to campaigns for several reasons. The first is that, as Citizens United confirmed, money is speech, and spending money to support a cause or a candidate is at the heart of political expression.
The second reason is perhaps even more basic. When government is huge and has their fingers in every pie, it creates a great deal of motivation to influence those fingers. Campaign contributions are merely a form of lobbying, and lobbying has a standard message: subsidize me and cut my taxes and regulations, but burden my competitors and enemies with taxes and regulations, if not ban them outright.
If you really want to "get money out of politics," you need to (as much as possible) get politics out of the economy. (Ideologues will always lobby, and that's fine, because it's the crony capitalism and pay-to-play aspects that are most objectionable.) Which, of course, is not what many reformers want to do. Until they do, they are basically advocating spreading sugar around their picnic blanket, and then complaining about all the ants.
Do you really want people who will be shown to be wrong within 40 years to be making force-of-law decisions for you on the very things that they are wrong about? My guess is that its only not-a-big-deal when it doesn't directly effect your lifestyle choices.
Yes, my point was not to criticize correcting mistakes, but pointing out how often the reformers are wrong in their certainty. If people simply decided that X was unhealthy and advocated avoiding it, it wouldn't be so bad. But often these reforms have the force of law, everyone is coerced into going along, and then later on, we find out it was better to have left things as they were.
Ever notice how many reforms are actually reversals of previous reforms? Trans fats got a huge boost in the '70s and '80s because the reformers were convinced that saturated fat was very bad for you. Margarine was supposed to be more healthy than butter. So manufacturers ditched saturated fats and went for trans fats.
Similarly, now people want to ban animal testing, which established at the insistence of the reformers of a century ago. HMOs were a healthcare reform of the '70s, and are now reviled. People now complain about mandatory minimum sentencing, which was a '70s reform meant to end the problem of wildly disparate sentences.
And so the cycle goes....
What part of Sanders' is batshit crazy. Please have some examples.
You did seem to miss the joke, but to answer your question, Sanders is an economic idiot. He really thinks that "too much" consumer choice for deodorants or sneakers causes hungry children.
What is crushing it is the debt burden, not the income vs. expenses equation.
If only those evil bastards hadn't forced Greece to borrow so much money!
Maybe if the Greeks paid their taxes this would not have happened.
Ah, the old "if only the government had more money, it wouldn't be bankrupt" idea. But of course it doesn't matter how high your revenue is, if you constantly spend more than that. See also: the United States.
Wait for Apple to sue them like they sued these guys.
Very possible, given that Apple has already patented a flexible battery that looks like a watch strap.