Liberalism as a disease has a name. Its called intersectionality.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2...rsectionality/

transcript from the Rush Limbaugh radio show on March 14, 2017.

“Intersectionality is a concept often used in critical theories to describe the ways in which oppressive institutions (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia … xenophobia… etc.) are interconnected and cannot be examined separately from one another.” That’s why they are said to intersect, and they are all one. So the way to understand intersectionality is “oppressive institutions (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia … xenophobia, classism, etc.),” they’re all one thing; they’re all evil.

it is also a political movement and a religion.

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...he-university/

more on intersectionalism in universities.

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...he-university/

more on intersectionalism in universities. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I like where the author[Michael Rectenwald] had to correct the 0zombie[tamarque] in the comments!

Great thread, we need to talk about this subject!

Michael Rectenwald says:

March 15, 2017 at 10:37 am

tamarque says: “I recall the incredible fight over the ACLU defending the KKK for its civil right to free speech. The issue then, as now, is when does speech become action, action that is materially threatening to some people, hate based and murderous. This article ignores this and presents Marcuse in a red baiting way. Not very honest, IMHO.”

Perhaps you are not aware but the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue, and speech becomes “action” — never. Not in the U.S. However, inciting incipient violence against others is not protected speech. Such speech is known as “fighting words,” and is not protected. But “hate speech” is protected speech in the U.S. I didn’t ignore “hate speech,” but for your information it is protected speech. I believe in the law of the land, not having activists deciding who cannot say what. That, as I wrote, represents a slippery slope that would have people like you deciding what is allowable and what is not. That is the path to totalitarianism.

“What this author ignores is how such language is designed to fuel hate and anger and gives permission to those ‘speakers’ and their audience to act out. It is language that incites violence.”

No, I assumed that my readers would know the Supreme Court rulings on the issue. In your case, I see that I was wrong.

“It it interesting that this author seems to equate being Black with being left, lumps them as one and implies they have no legitimate right to shut down speech that is designed to threaten their very ability to live, even on those very safe place campuses.”

See, this is precisely why we can’t have people like you, self-righteous activist types, determine who is allowed to say what. You can’t even comprehend what I wrote. I never even mentioned “Black” let alone equated being Black with being “left.” Where do you find that? It’s in your own mind, nowhere else. And no, people have no legitimate right to shut down speech on campus that they don’t approve of, merely because they don’t. Who are you to decide? Didn’t you read the article? Soon, your speech too will be excluded, once stepping on the slippery slope you’d consign us to.

“I also think, from years of experience in and around many movements, this author is trying to delegitimatize the need for groups of people to gather to discuss their own collective concerns such around racism and sexism or other identities that are NOT of the mainstream power base.”

I never said that at all. I said safe spaces were seriously misplaced in the university as places to escape expression that one disapproves of. I never said their use in other context was mistaken or should be discounted. In fact, such freedom of assembly is guaranteed by the Constitution. You. might try reading it sometime. Also, your first sentence is what represents an improper apposition. You say “I think from years of…, this author…” Technically, you’ve ascribed “years of experience…” to me, not yourself. I see where the root of your flawed reasoning lies. You don’t even know how language works.

Two feminists (1st gen) talk about CRYbalism...



Long version--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv7LvRhvgNI

The alt right is diseased, it is called suckerism!

Rush Limbaugh is picking your pockets...



.

The alt right is diseased, it is called suckerism!

Rush Limbaugh is picking your pockets...



. Originally Posted by WTF

Go shit a "exclamation point" on a cop car, to prove yourself.

I was gonna respond than I saw Rush Limbaugh's name. Didn't he die or was that John Candy I get my Fat ass comedians mixed up sometimes.
Fucking Rush trying to be intellectual, give me a break.