You are repeating the pattern here, the one that started my replies. You seem incapable of addressing any bad behavior by right wing entities without diverting to the supposed bad behavior of the left, which is off topic.

You respond to a two sentence side note but not the rest of the comment? Why you are boycotting Nike is not really the point. I only mentioned it because I originally thought it was due to their use of sweatshops, but your subsequent comments made me realize it was probably something else. I had forgotten that the right wing kerfuffle over Kaepernick had targeted Nike.

I try to live my life for God/Jesus.
What is a hateful agenda?

My issue with Kaepernick is not that he knelt during the anthem, although I’m not sure he reached as many people as he offended by choosing that manner of protesting. My problem with him is that he is dork, equating voting with supporting oppression, perpetuating a slur against cops with his stupid socks, and celebrating Che Guevara. Nike is free to hire him for marketing purposes, and I am free to buy Adidas.

I feel you are missing the forest for the trees. The issue here is that on every topic about right wing bad behavior you somehow go off on your idea of feminists, social justice and now “Marxism” whether or not they are relevant. I do not remember the last time you brought up the left in a relevant way in a discussion, it’s literally always in a way to deflect from a discussion where the right did something bad and people are talking about it.

The discussions you want to have there, as misguided as I feel most of them are, simply aren’t discussions that are appropriate to the topics you post them in. They are “whataboutism” which is a form of thread hijacking typically used by trolls.

The next time Warren posts about feminism in some context, I’d be happy to engage with you on that in that space. A thread about evangelical misbehavior isn’t that space.

Understood. Perhaps remember it like this. The Democratic Party is the name, just as The Republican Party is their name. It is Democratic leadership for leaders in the Democratic Party, or democratic leadership for general democratic style leadership. Just as it is Republican leadership, not Republic leadership. Since this epithet has gained use over the past few decades, it will save you unintended bad faith to remember that.

I’m not sure I really understand the rest of this. Chick-fil-A is a successful company, Nike is a successful company. You boycott Nike presumably because they employ a sports figure who knelt at a football game to protest police shootings of unarmed black men. I can’t think of a more peaceful, even respectful, protest or a more deserving issue. But either way, that boycott has received promotion from right wing figures from Ted Cruz to the Trump campaign and every pundit in between. Even if not, the man is on Nike advertising.

In the case of Chick-fil-A, these facts are not exactly promoted by the company. Someone had to find this out and then explain it in ways the general public understands. Ex-gay issues still aren’t widely understood. These protests are sometimes necessary to get the media to report on important, yet perhaps not “sexy” stories. This is largely the point of any protest. To do it peacefully seems the perfect expression of this.

I think Reflex’s point is sound. You do tend to jump in and comment negatively on left-leaning issues while remaining either silent or positive on right-leaning ones. Again, this is not an indictment but an observation. If you don’t like it, change it. If it doesn’t bother you, then own it. Just don’t pretend it isn’t so.

Understood. Perhaps remember it like this. The Democratic Party is the name, just as The Republican Party is their name. It is Democratic leadership for leaders in the Democratic Party, or democratic leadership for general democratic style leadership. Just as it is Republican leadership, not Republic leadership. Since this epithet has gained use over the past few decades, it will save you unintended bad faith to remember that.

I’m not sure I really understand the rest of this. Chick-fil-A is a successful company, Nike is a successful company. You boycott Nike presumably because they employ a sports figure who knelt at a football game to protest police shootings of unarmed black men. I can’t think of a more peaceful, even respectful, protest or a more deserving issue. But either way, that boycott has received promotion from right wing figures from Ted Cruz to the Trump campaign and every pundit in between. Even if not, the man is on Nike advertising.

In the case of Chick-fil-A, these facts are not exactly promoted by the company. Someone had to find this out and then explain it in ways the general public understands. Ex-gay issues still aren’t widely understood. These protests are sometimes necessary to get the media to report on important, yet perhaps not “sexy” stories. This is largely the point of any protest. To do it peacefully seems the perfect expression of this.

I think Reflex’s point is sound. You do tend to jump in and comment negatively on left-leaning issues while remaining either silent or positive on right-leaning ones. Again, this is not an indictment but an observation. If you don’t like it, change it. If it doesn’t bother you, then own it. Just don’t pretend it isn’t so.

What I was equating was the widespread resistance to the label of social justice, even though by most accounts it is a positive thing, with the widespread resistance to the label of feminism (even by a majority of women), even though by most accounts it is also a positive thing.

Roughly half of the country is conservative to some degree. If the goal is to expand a commitment to advancing social justice, then allowing extremists to hijack the label and conflate it with Marxism or any variety of extreme leftist ideologies is problematic. It has hampered feminism, which should be a no-brainer, and it will hamper social justice.

If you don’t equate them,why bring them up at all? The issue here isn’t so much your specific beliefs, its that in every article about the actions of the right, you bring up the left. By default that is equating them, when right now there is no equivalence.