'All houses matter' comes from an old cartoon referencing the "all lives matter" argument. Everybody can agree that all houses matter, but let's prioritize action on the houses that are actually on fire, and let's call ourselves firefighters instead of houselovers.

Like I said, egalitarianism is a respectable vision, and I think it's a decent counterpoint to, for example individualism. I just see an unfortunate behavior among many self-proclaimed egalitarianists to shout down activists by saying that equal treatment is more important than prioritizing specific social remedies. Eg "it's not about gay marriage, it's about all marriage; it's not about black lives, it's about all lives, and it's not about women's rights, it's about human rights." I agree - there's nothing in egalitarianism that inherently precludes any specific activism, but I see it as fairly common and non-constructive for people to act as though it does, or that it's somehow morally superior to care equally about all issues at once.

"If you care about animals and feel compelled to defend them, chances are you’ve come across knee-jerk accusations claiming you are “pushing your agenda,” forcing your ideas down their throat,” or “spreading propaganda.” So, why don’t other social justice advocates face the same accusations? It is very telling that human rights activists who campaign against violent and exploitative practices, such as sweatshop labor or sex trafficking, are rarely, if ever, criticized for pushing their beliefs on others. On the contrary, these activists are often lauded for their passion and commitment to justice and for exposing injustices."

http://freefromharm.org/common-justifications-for-eating-animals/animal-advocates/

"To close your eyes will not ease another's pain." - Chinese Proverb

Three pieces for your entertainment:

The Grauniad ran an opinion piece by former NYT executive editor Jill Abramson abtly titled "This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest". The headline is enough to make my head spin, nevermind the content. Not worth spending time on, really. You can guess what the comment section thought of it. Not surprisingly, it was closed after an hour.

Worth a read, however, is a recent polemic by Sean Kerrigan: Will We Elect Hillary After Her Many, Many War Crimes?

What made me laugh was this: the supposed presidential frontrunner would have been hanged if judged by the standards set at the Nuremberg Trials, yet Amal Clooney, a human rights lawyer, holds a fundraiser for Clinton at $350k per pair for seats at her majesty's table. Who the hell needs satire anyway, not even Doug Stanhope could come up with most of the twisted shit reality confronts us with day in, day out.

Last but not least, Robert Fisk wonders why neither Cameron nor Obama seem to be celebrating the retaking of Palmyra from the IS.

"Here are the Syrian army, backed, of course, by Vladimir Putin's Russkies, chucking the clowns of Isis out of town, and we daren't utter a single word to say well done."

She is the media, and she is presenting a one sided story here. How despicable to be using children to push a political agenda like this. The children at the start of this video have no idea about the reality of the situation in either direction. Their parents are terrible people for using them this way.
She is just as bad as the right wing politicians overplaying the fear, she is under playing it. And ignoring the real issues.

The real issue here is about difference in cultures, specifically a culture that hates women, human rights, and freedom, all justified by an equally hateful religion.

People aren't afraid of terrorists, but they are afraid of the US going through the same thing Europe is going through now.

I was a refugee myself BTW, from a communist country. But here's what I didn't do. I didn't keep living my life with communist values because it's obvious to me that those values were what made my country so bad. And I certainly didn't make everyone tolerant my old values, nor did I try to override other peoples human rights in order to appease my communist values.
I'd ask any other refugee to drop their own negative values as well if they truly want to integrate into a modern society. (Doesn't mean you have to pick up any negative values of modern society of course).

No kidding, why not say "Officer, I thought we'd be asked this so I looked into it ahead of time and the bylaw says..." Instead of pretending he's being deprived of some basic human right. You want cops to treat you like a person? Treat them like people.

In this case the cop was even right, but wasn't clear on the exact bylaws, but why the hell would he be? It's not like he's a dedicated esplanade cop.

"The administration of George W. Bush attempted to portray the abuses as isolated incidents, not indicative of general U.S. policy. This was contradicted by humanitarian organizations such as the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. After multiple investigations, these organizations stated that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were not isolated incidents, but were part of a wider pattern of torture and brutal treatment at American overseas detention centers, including those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. There was evidence that authorization for the torture had come from high up in the military hierarchy, with allegations being made that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had authorized some of the actions." - Wikipedia

Wait for it...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-17/priest-says-tim-minchin-song-hurting-abuse-survivors/7178606

"A Jesuit priest and human rights lawyer has accused Tim Minchin of endangering the integrity of the royal commission into sexual abuse after the comedian penned a song describing George Pell as "scum" and inviting the Cardinal to "come home and frickin' sue [me]".

Father Frank Brennan has warned that turning the commission into a "laughing stock" runs the risk of derailing proceedings.

"I don't think it's altogether helped by having songs about a key witness, calling him scum, and a buffoon, and a coward and that sort of thing before the commission does its task," Father Brennan told ABC's the Drum program.

"Because if we turn it into a laughing stock, then the big losers ... will be the victims themselves.""

Yeah, it's Minchin's song that's disturbing, not covering up child rape...

@Jinx

you used a great word:"nuance" and i would add "context".

i know you identify as a social justice warrior,and many here on the sift do as well.i would even include myself on that list in certain instances.

but this video is not addressing the rational and reasonable people who have valid grievances and wish to stand up for:human rights,fairness,justice and equality.

this video is addressing those who abuse political correctness to further their own,personal agenda,dressed up as social justice.these people,who have co-opted,infiltrated and hijacked LEGITIMATE and VALID causes and corrupted them with an irrationality that should,and IS,being ridiculed.

why?
because in the free market of ideas,where there is a free flow of information and dialogue,is the place where bad ideas go to die.

but how do these extremist deal with criticism?
with scrutiny and examination of their call for justice?

well,they simply ACCUSE you of being a:racist,bigot,homophobe etc etc and that is where the conversation ends.the very act of accusing shuts down any dissenting voice by demonizing that person for having the audacity to even question their righteous crusade.

change takes time in a free society.this is a slow process.
so archaic,societal and cultural belief systems take time to shift,but what has ALWAYS been the successful trait in every single victory for social justice is:conversation and discussion.making people aware of the situation and then addressing the problem.

basically it takes people talking about it.

but that is not the tactic we see used by these perpetually offended and faux outraged.THEIR tactic is to shut the conversation down as viciously and violently as they can.they are allergic to dissent or disagreement,and to even attempt to point out the logical fallacies,or incongruities will get you labeled a racist,bigot or homophobe.

that is not justice.that is censorship with a large dose of fascist.

this video makes a solid case for pointing out how a small cadre of narcissistic cry-babies have hijacked groups who had actual grievances and created an atmosphere of fear,anxiety and paranoia simply to promote their own brand of social justice by latching onto real movements...and in the process..destroyed them.

did you SEE what they did to occupy?
or their current slow motion destruction of feminism?
or how about that semi-retarded atheism plus?
good lord..just go watch PZ meyers slowly become a former shadow of himself to pander to these fuckwits.

look man.
even YOU acknowledge that their are some who abuse political correctness for their own self-aggrandizement,and i suspect that even YOU do not identify with this small group of extremists.

well,that is who this video is addressing.

i mean.what fair and reasonable person is AGAINST women having equality or being treated fairly?
who would be AGAINST fighting corruption in our political and economic systems?

but this new batch of social justice warriors are all about THEIR rights.THEIR feelings.THEIR safe spaces and THEIR fascist ideologies on how a society should behave and act.

and if you happen to disagree they will unleash the most vile and vicious tactics to not only shut you up,but lose your job AND,in some cases,abuse a court system to make you criminally libel.all because of THEIR agenda.

free speech is only something THEY are entitled to,YOU get to shut the fuck up.

this ultra-authoritarian,cultural marxism is so anti-democratic and anti-free society,that it must be called out and ridiculed for it's own absurd lack of self-awareness.

they should be laughed at,ridiculed and chastised for the idiocy it proposes.

now maybe we disagree on this,and that is fine.disagreements will happen and they are healthy.

but just know i am not addressing those actual social justice warriors,but rather their more radical and fascist minority that appear to have hijacked the conversation.

and i truly highly doubt you are part of that minority,and if you are?
sorry man.we disagree.

Sorry, but I still can't understand. We obviously don't get to wish away history and just declare America and everybody else should've allowed more Jewish immigration and thus the Jew's that fled to Palestine were illegitimate. If we are wishing, we might as well go all out for an alternate history where Hitler and the Nazi's respected human rights and strove for peace.

Fact is that millions of Jews were trying to flee persecution in Europe(and not just the Nazi's, they were just the worst of the bunch). Fact is that the nations of the world, just like today and always, didn't want to take in nearly that many refugees. They allowed in the smartest and the richest, and that was about the line that was drawn. Truly, I can not blame the still million plus Jews with nowhere to legally escape to choosing illegal immigration to locations deemed safer for them and their families. With Palestine already having a sizable Jewish population and being closer than many other places, it made perfect sense for them to flee there. I really can't see any rational objection to this you've raised save for declaring their situation NOT that desperate or that magically we should've changed history and had everyone else act better, which plainly wasn't something the European Jews could rely upon.

As to theft of land, prior to the total outbreak of civil war in Palestine, it cut both ways. You again seem to refuse to acknowledge this. It was not just the Jews unfairly and violently dealing with the Arab Palestinians, but it was equally Arab Palestinians doing the EXACT same to the Jewish Palestinians. With the British pulling out, both parties were grabbing for land and power. You talk as though the Arab Palestinians were standing there holding out roses and snacks for the Jewish Palestinians only to find themselves shot down for the favour.

After the break out of civil war the Jewish Palestinians and refugees absolutely gained more land than they had at the outset. That is hardly the only time in history that a civil war worked out that way though. More over, when Israel accepted the UN 2 state solution, it was the Arabs that refused, allied with the surrounding Arab state to grossly outnumber the fledgling Jewish state and swore to drive the Jews into the sea. The exact quote is from Azzam Pasha, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, who declared "We will sweep them into the sea". When that war ended, Israel was even larger than when the war started. If that counts as 'stealing' land I think your a little too lose with your definitions. When a much larger alliance of nations tries to destroy a smaller one, is it really expected that the smaller nation return all land it gained as a manner of good behaviour?

@Babymech
alright!
/claps hands..
now we are getting somewhere!
is it time to make out yet?

on a good note.
we agree more than disagree.
so it appears anyways.we may vary on the particulars but i think it safe to assume we can agree on the bulk i.e:human rights,fairness and justice.

(or it may be because you are just as disgusted by those overly privileged whiners as i am,snapping their fingers and shouting about "safe places")

solidarity!!

anyways...
i used sommers as a reference because she identifies as a feminists.you may dispute if she is in fact a feminist but thats how she identifies.i thought i was being deliciously ironical,but i digress.

here is a far better,and bipartisan source for your consideration from 2011:https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Regional-Economist/October-2011/Gender-Wage-Gap-May-Be-Much-Smaller-Than-Most-Think

notice everything is sourced and noted.

the key in our discussion is how we comprehend data,and data in raw form can be just as confusing and misleading if the right questions are not asked,which makes it easy for us all to be manipulated (which i think you mentioned as well).

so just for the record:
i am not anti-feminist,but i am anti-bullshit,against weak and facile arguments to create an emotional response in order to promote a political agenda.

because we all lose in the end,and it detracts from the real issues and real grievances.

why certain rabid feminists thought it perfectly ok to threaten this woman with death and violence,and yet,with zero sense of self-aware irony will use the threat of violence to THEM to promote their politics.

all because she disagreed with them.

anyways..thanks for hanging in there mate.
ill be right over for our lil make out session.

It's worth noting though that in Europe the word Gypsy, or variants of Zigane / Zigeuner, is a racial slur and used in modern times in actual, horrifying violence against minorities. I mean to the point where it's used by the same people who paint swastikas on walls before they raze tent villages.

http://www.newstatesman.com/human-rights/2014/04/why-europe-failing-protect-its-roma-population-hate-crimes

In the US this is obviously not a thing, and it still doesn't make sense to me to start writing G*p*y (I just see 'guppy' when I read that) but there is a history of racism against the Romani going back centuries, as well as a modern culture of extreme marginalization and exclusion.

I don't want Europeans to go around casually using the N-word and thinking that that's only a disgusting term when it's used in the US, so I guess I wouldn't want Americans going around casually saying Gypsy either, if it can be avoided?

This seems pretty naive to me. Isis has killed thousands of people, according to a CNN report:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-muslim-death-toll.html

According to the syrian observatory for human rights, Isis has murdered 3200 people in Syria alone. Other reports place the death toll in Iraq at 7000 people.

They have millions of dollars at their disposal, they are allied with Boko Haram, and they not just in Iraq and Syria but all over North Africa.

To say they are weak is naive..weak organizations don't have millions of dollars, territory all over the middle east and murder thousands of people.

Gotta disagree with you, sweetpea.

I mean, how would you feel if someone lectured you on personal choices you have made that they don't agree with?

The people who don't "fit" the church, any church, leave. Some don't know how, and many do.

If you truly believe in the basic human right to make choices for your own self, you would not talk like this.

Are there some "non-good people" who hide in the church? Sure. They hide outside the church, too.

There is no perfection in this world. Choices are made, choices are lived with, choices are changed.

Respect for fellow human beings, though. That should be our standard, yeah? If we are good people?

It's really not correct to say we're all human and we have a responsibility to care for one another and so forth when so many of the refugees are dangerous, mediaeval fanatics.

It's not that they're predominantly brownish-skinned; it's not that they're poor or uneducated; it's not that they come from some other country, as if geography means anything; it's that they're devout and practising members of a cult of murderous, totalitarian evil. Europe has enough fascists already, we don't want any more.

The compassionate, humanitarian thing to do would be machine gun all the muslims at the border, and welcome the rest of the refugees with open arms. Migration is a human right; some people just aren't human.

Not that I'm trying to excuse that sinks bigotry and disregard for human rights, but...
This is a well-known flaw. The infrared sensor on these things needs a bright surface to reflect it back. They also don't work often/well if you're wearing dark clothes, like a black shirt.
But still... fuck that sink.