The "they" who administered the SPLC in the 1980s and the 1990s are entirely different people than the "they" of today.
That's how this game is played. When something builds a good reputation, a certain sort co-opts it and demands eternal undeserved respect based on the reputation that the new leaders never earned.
Is this then the nature of all liberal doctrine? Any success of your program will define its end. And if you don't want it to end, you need to refine the issue or redefine the issue. It's like someone who continues to get nose jobs until there is nothing left on their face.
That’s pretty much exactly what happened with GLAAD. They won gay rights, then pivoted to trans insanity to stay relevant, and have made a mockery of themselves and the community in the process. Oh, and have of course been found to be engaging in rampant corruption, with the head of the organization spending funds on luxury flights, hotels, food, and car services for herself and her friends.
That is interesting. I wonder how many others fit that model. By almost every physical measure of human existence (mortality, access to social services, food and water availability, etc) , this is the best time to be alive. Yet social measures are at historic lows.
This sound like what happens to businesses that get swallowed up by private equity. They take a good thing, exploit it for profit and ruin the original product or intent.
Also, why is there no "Kris Goldsmith" for the radical left which is far more dangerous, destructive, and deadly? I remember reading the Goldsmith article which is what lead me to subscribe to The Radicalist. Even then I wanted to ask Kris why not take on the more deadly threat from the left?
Just a reminder: The KKK was democrats. Slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation were controlled by democrats. Today, the inner city black ghettoes are ruled by democrats. Is anyone spotting a pattern?..,.
The "they" who administered the SPLC in the 1980s and the 1990s are entirely different people than the "they" of today.
That's how this game is played. When something builds a good reputation, a certain sort co-opts it and demands eternal undeserved respect based on the reputation that the new leaders never earned.
Is this then the nature of all liberal doctrine? Any success of your program will define its end. And if you don't want it to end, you need to refine the issue or redefine the issue. It's like someone who continues to get nose jobs until there is nothing left on their face.
That’s pretty much exactly what happened with GLAAD. They won gay rights, then pivoted to trans insanity to stay relevant, and have made a mockery of themselves and the community in the process. Oh, and have of course been found to be engaging in rampant corruption, with the head of the organization spending funds on luxury flights, hotels, food, and car services for herself and her friends.
That is interesting. I wonder how many others fit that model. By almost every physical measure of human existence (mortality, access to social services, food and water availability, etc) , this is the best time to be alive. Yet social measures are at historic lows.
This sound like what happens to businesses that get swallowed up by private equity. They take a good thing, exploit it for profit and ruin the original product or intent.
Also, why is there no "Kris Goldsmith" for the radical left which is far more dangerous, destructive, and deadly? I remember reading the Goldsmith article which is what lead me to subscribe to The Radicalist. Even then I wanted to ask Kris why not take on the more deadly threat from the left?
Just a reminder: The KKK was democrats. Slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation were controlled by democrats. Today, the inner city black ghettoes are ruled by democrats. Is anyone spotting a pattern?..,.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."
As Eric Hoffer did NOT say.
Remember, though, that doesn't make the current law suit against them well-founded or accurate.