Want to know what bugs me? People who think that basic civil rights and social justice for all are the unattainable and undesirable fantasies of a lunatic fringe. Just saying.
Want to know what bugs me? People who think that many people think that basic civil rights are undesirable. Just saying.
Just because a words in there doesn't make it so, North Korea is officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea after all and i don't think they're big on democracy
You should consider that the only people that call North Korea that are the assholes that named it that.
This is an important point. If it's not social justice, don't call it social justice. Don't even mention that someone
thinks it's social justice---you're only spreading the misuse. Eventually, someone hears "social justice" about whatever that is so many times, that they start calling it "social justice". There's always someone who'll think that anything called that is that. So you get doublethink. You say "social justice is bad" and they hear you think that what is social justice is bad. Or you say "social justice is good" and they hear you think that what's called "social justice" is good. The problem is that we're using a term that has 2 opposite meanings.
Well for what its worth you have my respect, I'm a Corrections Officer and I couldn't do what you do with the obstacles that you face
For anyone that doesn't follow penal euphemisms, "corrections officer" means prison guard. By the way, I'm terribly sorry that you're in the sucky position of having to work for a prison.
The thing about single issue activists, whether political, environmental or anything else, is that by definition they are utterly blinkered and incapable of seeing the big picture.
By definition? I can understand that caring about only the one thing can make it easy to ignore other things, but I don't think that prevents them from being aware of other things. Of course, I can see how one might come to that conclusion. Most of my interactions with activists was when they're "on the job". Now, if I'm not mistaken, when the activist is working for an issue in the "raise awareness" department, he's probably going to talk about that one issue, not about some other issues. He could well care about other issues, but his present focus is on the one issue that he's presently working for. From the other perspective, a "general" activist, who cares about the "big picture", would have to choose whether to spread his efforts among all the issues he cares about, or to focus on trying to solve one specific issue. It's often the case that doing one thing at a time is more effective than doing multiple things at the same time. Of course, it's important to not forget about other issues, otherwise you might get a situation like you described about reducing one pollution while raising another.
The BLM activists didn't want funding removed from the groups you mention, they were simply so far off their radar that they didn't consider them at all.
Practically, there's no difference. Sure, their intentions might be clear, but if the result is funding goes from other issues to their issues, they're effectively taking that money from the other issues. Sure, it's not
their fault that who they get money from simply redirects the funding, but if their intent isn't to take the help that others would have gotten, then that should be something they consider.
Perhaps they’re [Ellicott-Chatham] more similar than they would like to admit.
I thought it was quite natural. Not similarity, but the combination of the idealist (Ellicot) the pragmatist (Chatham). Another example is the Steves of Fruitbasket. Ellicot's position heading a powerful research company is probably due much to Chatham's business sense. Likewise, Chatham's industries being as powerful as they are today was probably aided by the ideas from Ellicott's mind. Together, they'd be quite powerful, but making such a union live long would probably take a lot of work.