Smashing Pumpkins Frontman Billy Corgan Compares 'Social Justice Warriors' To KKK

[Ahlevah]

No one has accused Billy Corgan of being racist. I commented that Johnny Ramone was. Marky Ramone goes into it in his book. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6vf2VNoS-Iw&autoplay=1

:doh Oops! Sorry! I guess I'm the one who got caught up in my underwear.

 

[Mithrae]

I can't recall which philosopher made the statement, but paraphrasing him he said, "I can't define evil, but I know it when I see it." It's sort of like that. Imagine a person with an ego like a snowflake who can't go ten minutes between microaggressions unless he's incubating in his safe space with like-minded victims or those suffering from something called "white guilt" who feel a masochistic need to be put into their proper place, discussing the latest leftist literature and comparing notes on racism while discussing strategy for their next protest at a Trump rally. That's an example of a "Social Justice Warrior."

It's also an example of a person who probably doesn't exist

With all these threads attacking 'social justice warriors' lately, I've really started to notice that it seems to mean rather different things to different people.
> To you, and evidently to Billy Corgan and Alex Jones, the main defining characteristic appears to be an obsessive fixation on victimhood, such as racism, and its social manifestations.
> To Fenton and Mason, the main defining characteristic seems to be economic views/agendas, of supposed 'socialism' and equality of outcome.
> To the top entry on Urban Dictionary, the main defining characteristics seem to portray a phony internet 'warrior' who argues primarily for reputation or props within their sub-culture.

While they're not necessarily mutually exclusive, these are obviously all very different points of emphasis.

So can we conclude that 'social justice warrior' is or has become just another meaningless insult to be attached to everyone that someone disagrees with or doesn't like? Just another empty slur like labeling someone 'un-American' or calling all left-leaning folk 'socialists'? Obviously the middle definition in particular, the emphasis on economic views, could be taken to label all left-leaning folk SJWs too :lol:

Or are all three points of emphasis valid characteristics of a 'social justice warrior'; must someone demonstrate all three traits before it's fair to attach that label? Or, indeed, is one of those points of emphasis simply wrong?

 

[Kurmugeon]

Everyday, more and more people see through the deceptions, greed, power lust, and avarice of the Left.

It refreshing to see it come from the entertainment elite.

There is a word for what the Left has become:


ve·nal
ˈvēnl/
adjective
adjective: venal

showing or motivated by susceptibility to bribery.
"why should these venal politicians care how they are rated?"
synonyms: corrupt, corruptible, bribable, open to bribery; dishonest, dishonorable, untrustworthy, unscrupulous, unprincipled;
mercenary, greedy;
informalcrooked
"they ran the town according to their own venal system of 'law and order'"


The common, Working White Americans have come to recognize this in droves under the abuses, racial discriminations and crimes of Obama and Crew....

-

 

[Ahlevah]

With all these threads attacking 'social justice warriors' lately, I've really started to notice that it seems to mean rather different things to different people.
> To you, and evidently to Billy Corgan and Alex Jones, the main defining characteristic appears to be an obsessive fixation on victimhood, such as racism, and its social manifestations.

Of course, to the "Social Justice Warrior" there is always an oppressor and someone who is the oppressed, whether it's women, minorities, the poor, immigrants, or whoever. Corgan is approaching the issue from the point of view of an artist who believes in free expression. He mentions growing up in Skokie during the period when the neo-Nazis wanted to hold a march there. He supported their right to spread their hate. So did the "liberal" ACLU, to the point that it made a federal case out of it. Corgan's "Social Justice Warrior" would be the guy who showed up at a Nazi rally in order to disrupt it. According to this mode of thought, certain types of dissent just shouldn't be tolerated under any circumstances. It's the same thought process that says people who speak out against abortion or a so-called "rape culture" shouldn't be able to air their views on college campuses. It's the same thought process that says Donald Trump shouldn't be permitted to rent an arena at the University of Illinois at Chicago, but when the school makes an announcement that it upholds freedom of thought and will rent it to him anyway the students decide themselves that Trump's "hate" shouldn't be heard and that his speech should be disrupted. Corgan compares their methods to those of the KKK--use force if you have to in order to stifle dissent. That's where Corgan's coming from, and I agree with him.

 

[jmotivator]

I notice you seem to criticize any musician as "****ty", if they don't toe the leftist line. Just out of curiosity, what is your criteria for "talented musician"?

Henry just goes to concerts for the leftist screeds between songs.

 

[Ahlevah]

So can we conclude that 'social justice warrior' is or has become just another meaningless insult to be attached to everyone that someone disagrees with or doesn't like?

If you can come up with a better term to describe the people I outlined in my post above I'm all ears.

 

[jmotivator]

Marky Ramone would be a good place to start dude. It's always been kind of common knowledge among diehard fans.

So you like making the claim, just not backing up the claim.

 

[Andalublue]

When I first saw the title of this thread I thought it was gonna be news about another rock star who passed away... Whew!

I thought he'd been dead for years. Appearing on Alex Jones doesn't necessarily prove me wrong btw.

 

[HenryChinaski]

So you like making the claim, just not backing up the claim.

I already did. Johnny Ramone was an anti-Semite racist. Even Joey's nickname for him was the "fascist" Just about every book written about the band by those who were either in the band or knew the band allude to the fact that he was a racist.

 

[PoS]

I already did. Johnny Ramone was an anti-Semite racist. Even Joey's nickname for him was the "fascist" Just about every book written about the band by those who were either in the band or knew the band allude to the fact that he was a racist.

To be fair, Johnny and Joey Ramone hated each other ever since Joey's wife left him for Johnny. There was plenty of animosity between the band mates so it wouldnt surprise me that the R word was thrown around. Marky says he got along with him according to that interview you posted. And lots of people do say racial slurs, sometimes to piss people off, it doesnt necessarily mean they are racists.

 

[jmotivator]

I already did. Johnny Ramone was an anti-Semite racist. Even Joey's nickname for him was the "fascist" Just about every book written about the band by those who were either in the band or knew the band allude to the fact that he was a racist.

The video you showed was more of that "alluding" where they never say what he actually did to make him a "racist". The only real specific gripe in that video was that he ate smelly fish in the tour bus. Joey was an overly dramatic left winger, so I don't really give his supposed nickname any credence. I've been called "fascist" by enough left wing kooks to know how little such a pejorative has to back it up.

 

[HenryChinaski]

The video you showed was more of that "alluding" where they never say what he actually did to make him a "racist". The only real specific gripe in that video was that he ate smelly fish in the tour bus. Joey was an overly dramatic left winger, so I don't really give his supposed nickname any credence. I've been called "fascist" by enough left wing kooks to know how little such a pejorative has to back it up.

As I said just about anyone who knew him who published a Book states the same thing I just finished "on the road with the Ramones" which was written by their road manager.he confirms the same thing.

 

[Mithrae]

Corgan compares their methods to those of the KKK--use force if you have to in order to stifle dissent. That's where Corgan's coming from, and I agree with him.

From what you quoted it was Alex Jones who compared them to the KKK, not Billy Corgan. Presumably you were misled by the headline of your source; I missed it myself, but Mason noticed it

Of course, to the "Social Justice Warrior" there is always an oppressor and someone who is the oppressed, whether it's women, minorities, the poor, immigrants, or whoever. Corgan is approaching the issue from the point of view of an artist who believes in free expression. He mentions growing up in Skokie during the period when the neo-Nazis wanted to hold a march there. He supported their right to spread their hate. So did the "liberal" ACLU, to the point that it made a federal case out of it. Corgan's "Social Justice Warrior" would be the guy who showed up at a Nazi rally in order to disrupt it. According to this mode of thought, certain types of dissent just shouldn't be tolerated under any circumstances. It's the same thought process that says people who speak out against abortion or a so-called "rape culture" shouldn't be able to air their views on college campuses. It's the same thought process that says Donald Trump shouldn't be permitted to rent an arena at the University of Illinois at Chicago, but when the school makes an announcement that it upholds freedom of thought and will rent it to him anyway the students decide themselves that Trump's "hate" shouldn't be heard and that his speech should be disrupted. Corgan compares their methods to those of the KKK--use force if you have to in order to stifle dissent. That's where Corgan's coming from, and I agree with him.

For my part, like most liberals I'm all in favour of any point of view being reasonably presented and reasonably discussed - see for example Noam Chomsky's role regarding the book by Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson - and against the use of violence. So to that extent I'd certainly share your criticisms of certain folks' behaviour.

On the other hand, as I've already tried to point out, the ill-defined labeling of a 'social justice warrior' group and frequent hyperbolic attacks invoking likenesses to murderers and (if I read post #9 correctly) even first steps toward genocide are just as worthy of criticism as the so-called social justice warriors themselves, if not moreso. Such blanket characterizations and criticisms tend to produce a knee-jerk reactionism, as I commented to Radcen when he professed to know that the "inner motivations" of these social justice warriors were hateful, rather than a case-by-case analysis. For example, merely criticizing someone else's opinions is itself an exercise in free speech; yet such a simple and (I would have thought) obvious fact has needed to be pointed out in thread after manufactured-outrage thread on this forum over the months. Similarly the actions of private organisations and individuals, if they are not harassment or otherwise illegal, are ultimately a matter of their own choice, conscience and consequence; yet here too, we've seen numerous threads attacking decisions by television stations, private universities or boycott groups as assaults on freedom of speech, when they are nothing of the sort.

Now don't get me wrong: Surely the world would be a better place if everyone was a bit more thick-skinned and - the flip side of the coin - generally a bit more civil and objective too!

But with the proliferation of all these threads, and in the past few months many of them specifically targeting this ill-defined group of 'social justice warriors' as culprits, my concern is that any regard for nuance or case-by-case consideration (not that that's ever been a very common occurrence to begin with) is lost behind a vague prejudice, an automatic "Oh, they're at it again" without ever even considering whether the target is one of 'them' in the first place or if the specific case is typical of 'them' at all!



It's even worse than the similar ubiquitous attacks on any call for more civil discourse as being a hallmark of "the PC police," because at least 'PC police' is a pretty clearly-defined characteristic.

 

[jmotivator]

As I said just about anyone who knew him who published a Book states the same thing I just finished "on the road with the Ramones" which was written by their road manager.he confirms the same thing.

OK, give us some specific examples of racist beliefs held by Johnny Ramone. I'm not saying he wasn't a racist, but you seem incapable as yet of actually detailing his racist beliefs.

 

[PoS]

As I said just about anyone who knew him who published a Book states the same thing I just finished "on the road with the Ramones" which was written by their road manager.he confirms the same thing.

When band mates hate each other (Joey and Johnny were political opposites, not to mention fighting over a girl) things will be said by both sides to piss each other off. That spillover can include the crew traveling with them. Is there any confirmation by people outside of the band that Johnny Ramone was a racist?

 

[HenryChinaski]

OK, give us some specific examples of racist beliefs held by Johnny Ramone. I'm not saying he wasn't a racist, but you seem incapable as yet of actually detailing his racist beliefs.

Those examples have been published by others by those that knew the guy. Go read a book or two (avoid Dee Dee's however) But here's a a blurb from a Q&A with Marky around the time when his book came out.

When you first joined the Ramones, were you surprised to discover that Johnny was a racist who beat on his girlfriend?
Well, I don’t like bigots and I don’t like men who hit women. So him being an anti-Semite and saying the n-word every second, I didn’t like that. My parents took me to the first March on Washington, the first big march for civil rights, in ’63. So I was raised in a family where it doesn’t matter what color you are or what religion you are as long as you’re a good person. So hearing Johnny spew this stuff irritated me.

 

[Ahlevah]

From what you quoted it was Alex Jones who compared them to the KKK, not Billy Corgan.

Jones mentioned the "dumb Klan guy" but then Corgan picked up on it:

Corgan began his Klan analogy by conceding that America has a “racist bent”.

“If you could go back to Selma, 1932 and the Klan member spitting in some person of color’s face, don’t you think that guy thought he was right too? OK. So how is this any different?”

Billy Corgan compares 'social justice warriors' to the KKK | Music | The Guardian

On the other hand, as I've already tried to point out, the ill-defined labeling of a 'social justice warrior' group and frequent hyperbolic attacks invoking likenesses to murderers and (if I read post #9 correctly) even first steps toward genocide are just as worthy of criticism as the so-called social justice warriors themselves, if not moreso. Such blanket characterizations and criticisms tend to produce a knee-jerk reactionism, as I commented to Radcen when he professed to know that the "inner motivations" of these social justice warriors were hateful, rather than a case-by-case analysis. For example, merely criticizing someone else's opinions is itself an exercise in free speech; yet such a simple and (I would have thought) obvious fact has needed to be pointed out in thread after manufactured-outrage thread on this forum over the months. Similarly the actions of private organisations and individuals, if they are not harassment or otherwise illegal, are ultimately a matter of their own choice, conscience and consequence; yet here too, we've seen numerous threads attacking decisions by television stations, private universities or boycott groups as assaults on freedom of speech, when they are nothing of the sort.

I'm not going to compare them with murderers or call them genocidal at this point, but we're talking about people who are extremely militant in their views to the point that they're not interested in opposing views and will, at the least, shout down those who disagree with them. From that standpoint the comparison to a cult was apt.

But with the proliferation of all these threads, and in the past few months many of them specifically targeting this ill-defined group of 'social justice warriors' as culprits, my concern is that any regard for nuance or case-by-case consideration (not that that's ever been a very common occurrence to begin with) is lost behind a vague prejudice, an automatic "Oh, they're at it again" without ever even considering whether the target is one of 'them' in the first place or if the specific case is typical of 'them' at all!

The thing is we're seeing the same behaviors and the same terms being utilized by these people--"microagressions, safe spaces, anti-oppressive policy," and so forth. It's a worldview in which people are where they are because someone is holding them down (whether it be men, whites, governments, corporations, politicians like Trump, or whatever). I'm sorry, but I see a commonality here, so it needs to be called out and a term applied to it, because, frankly, this sort of behavior is dangerous to a free society. It IS the sort of thought that is anti-democratic and can lead to a totalitarian or authoritarian state of affairs. Only bad **** can flow from this toilet.

 

[Ahlevah]

It's even worse than the similar ubiquitous attacks on any call for more civil discourse as being a hallmark of "the PC police," because at least 'PC police' is a pretty clearly-defined characteristic.

I don't think the term "PC police" adequately describes these people. It's not just about stifling freedom of speech. It's about forcing institutions (such as colleges) to conform to their worldview. In the college realm, this means taking control of administrations or, at least, cowing administrations through intimidation to force change. Administrators, professors, or deans who question them are devils to be exorcised, since they're viewed as roadblocks to progress.

 

[Ahlevah]

So here's a kid from Kenya who in high school joined his local ACLU chapter in Minnesota and got involved in social justice groups comprised of high school and college kids. Then he got a lesson in what happens when you voice dissent:

“I never voiced my personal disagreements because having dissenting views is strictly forbidden in the activist circles I was a part of,” he explained. “If you’re white, you will be charged with being a ‘bad ally.’ (There's also certain gatherings you cannot come to because your mere presence might be threatening.) If you’re a person of color, your disagreements will usually be dismissed as some form of ‘internalized racism,’ ‘internalized sexism,’ or ‘respectability politics,’ among many other activist jargon's thrown at individuals who do not conform the groups views.”

Eventually, he started to speak up anyway, he said.

“On Twitter,” he wrote, “I discussed how trigger warnings have almost been rendered useless now that they’re used to alert individuals when talking about normal everyday things, like food, cars and animals. And that their use could potentially have adverse effects on academic freedom. I was accused of being outrageously insensitive and apparently made three activist cohorts have traumatic breakdowns.”

“In another tweet,” he added, “I criticized the usual tactic of campus activists to disrupt and heckle controversial speakers and advised them to raise their strong objections during the question and answer session, which lectures usually reserve long hours precisely to debate opponents. This time, the attacks got a little more personal. I was accused of being a ‘respectable negro,’ ‘uncle tom,’ ‘local coon’ and defending university officials to continue to ‘systemically oppress minorities.’”

I asked if he thought his race and ethnicity made it easier or harder to dissent. “A little easier, I guess,” he replied, “But it really doesn't feel good being a called a ‘house nigger.’”

He says he was ultimately kicked out of student-led social justice groups.

Left Outside the Social-Justice Movement's Small Tent - The Atlantic

He got kicked out. Well, color me surprised.

 

[Ahlevah]

And you know you've got a problem when even the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune writes an editorial on the subject:

Free expression is not faring well on American college campuses these days. In some places, the problem is students taking grave offense at opinions that merit only minor umbrage or none at all. In others, it's official speech codes that chill discussion. In still others, it's administrators so intent on preventing sexual harassment that they avoid open discussion of gender-related matters.

There is a lot to be said for making people aware of the ways in which their words and deeds can do harm. No one wants to go back to the days when casual expressions of racial prejudice were common, or when women were mocked for taking places that should have gone to men, or when some professors made passes at students.

But it's important not to go so far in protecting undergraduates that they lose the spontaneous and open interactions they need to understand the world and the society in which they live. An education that spares students from unwanted challenges to their thinking is not much of an education.

Defending free speech on college campuses - Chicago Tribune

 

[Ahlevah]

And this guy nails it right on the head:

In a dazzlingly archetypical display of horseshoe theory, this particular brand of millennial social justice advocates have warped an admirable cause for social, economic, and political equality into a socially authoritarian movement that has divided and dehumanized individuals on the basis of an insular ideology guised as academic theory. The modern social justice movement launched on Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, Jezebel, Slate, Huffington Post, et al. is far more reminiscent of a Red Scare (pick one) than the Civil Rights Movement.

Social Justice Bullies: The Authoritarianism of Millennial Social Justice

Now, the author of this piece is a self-described liberal, and yet his description of the modern social justice movement as "reminiscent of a Red Scare" seems to have found common ground with Billy Corgan's description of social justice advocates as Maoists "with their Little Red Book in hand."

 

[Mithrae]

So here's a kid from Kenya who in high school joined his local ACLU chapter in Minnesota and got involved in social justice groups comprised of high school and college kids. Then he got a lesson in what happens when you voice dissent:


He got kicked out. Well, color me surprised.

And you know you've got a problem when even the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune writes an editorial on the subject:

And this guy nails it right on the head:


Now, the author of this piece is a self-described liberal, and yet his description of the modern social justice movement as "reminiscent of a Red Scare" seems to have found common ground with Billy Corgan's description of social justice advocates as Maoists "with their Little Red Book in hand."

Some excellent points there. I'll keep an open mind