I always like it when liberals who want to defend their corrupt union bosses use reasoned, articulate arguments like yours to refute, step by step, each issue raised.
Oh, wait, you didn't do that. You can't bring yourself to try to explain away reality, so you're just using lazy ad hominem in order to deflect. The left: always home to shrill whiners who are scared of forming and expressing their own thoughts. Nope! "What you said makes me feel uncomfortable with the premises on which I've based my entire world view, so I will call you a fucking brainwashed retard to show you how much more intelligent I am and to avoid having to confront the contradictions in my own thinking." Thanks for being such a typical example, and putting it on display.
The American war on unions has been one of the most successful propaganda campaigns that most of alive at this time have ever seen.
Sure, if you consider pointing out and fighting against deeply rooted corruption to be "propaganda." You're practicing propaganda right now, by your own vague standards.
We are only now seeing the results of continual decreases in aggregate spending power that is the result of the failure of the workers to organize both for themselves, and for the greater good.
No, we're seeing the rest of the world finally catch up in their ability to provide the same goods and services that - for several post-war decades - used to be the sole province of US-based businesses.
Instead organizing has become a historical footnote as we descend into a vicious circle brought about by lower aggregate spending as a direct result of decreased worker power.
No, you're seeing the direct result of decreased worker value. A given worker isn't nearly as valuable as they used to be, because we no longer need as many file clerks, receptionists, people pushing carts full of parts around a factory, riveters, welders, flour millers, ditch diggers, movable typesetters, bench solderers, fork lift operators, textile workers, and the like. And if you want to make it even more expensive to employ people to fit the jobs along those lines that remain, you're just going to chase that work over the borders even faster. "Worker power," in the way you fantasize about it, is a part of the problem, not a solution. You're trying to wish away a few billion people living in places where the cost of living, regulatory environment, and tax landscape are far more competitive than in the US.
You want more jobs, and more companies fighting over hiring people at higher wages? Get behind fewer regulations and lower taxes. Stop chasing the people you consider your enemies (employers) out of the country.
Ah, there we go. You don't like it when someone makes an observation (in this case, about craven purveyors of political correctness) that resonates with things you've heard someone else say, and which make you uncomfortable and want to ask someone to escort you to your safe space. But because you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit you can't explain WHY you dislike what other people say, you just resort to your usual invertebrate ad hominem. As you've just done, yet again. You can't actually explain why you hate people, only stamp your feet and scream over and over again that you do.
You are topic free
And yet it's the topic on which I commented that kicked off your latest infantile, substance-less rant. You contradict yourself, even on such a simple thing. No wonder you don't want to risk your fragile self esteem by trying to construct a response on topic that's actually being discussed. That's how brittle your psyche is. Just another scared little troll with nothing to say.
Those aren't "people." Those are agents provocateurs planted by the FBI (and/or other law enforcement).
Really? Hundreds of them at a time, huh? And the people who are smashing windows and burning stuff are on video, and identified by their neighbors as being familiar local thugs... all working secretly working for the FBI, those crafty devils! Are you even listening to yourself?
A drone flying high overhead has no preventative role, it can only be punitive.
No, it allows the police to act in a preventative way without having to risk the presence of so many officers and equipment on the ground where they're not even needed. That's the whole point. If a riot starts boiling over, move the resources to where they're needed - don't put more resources than you can afford everywhere, even where they're not needed, just in case. And if you can spot a group of people lighting up molotov cocktails down the block before those "protesters" have managed to burn down a whole row of businesses, you are very much in preventative mode.
Armed crackers in a stand-off with the FBI because some white privilege rancher want access to BLM land is what always comes to mind when I see "BLM protesters".
Yeah, I can see how you'd rather "see" that than see people looting the businesses in their own neighborhoods, burning down city blocks, chanting about wanting to see dead police officers, and cheering when cops are murdered. It's a lot more fun to "see" things that don't involve so much destruction and death.
I think the more fascinating question is what YOU expect to gain with your pattern of snarky juvenile drive-by comments that very carefully NEVER touch on the subject at hand. What personality defect is it that compels you to do that? Who do you think you're persuading, exactly? Really, do tell. It's strange to see such a pattern of deliberately visiting threads so that you can just dish out some childish hate, leave no comment that in any way expresses a basis for your vitriol, and then has you coming back to compulsively do it over and over again. So, care to comment on the actual subject matter? Still can't muster the intellectual integrity for that? No? Why not? What are you afraid of, when it comes to using your own words? Don't be afraid. Maybe ask your mom for some help.
You know what WOULD be hilarious at this point? If you actually even once overcame your cowardice and commented on topic. That would be shocking, but funny because I think it's safe to say it would be completely irrational ramblings. But we'll never know, because you're such a coward, so afraid of how you'll sound if you ever try to explain the basis for your childish tantrums. So we're forced to imagine, based on your completely substance-less history, how vapid, self-contradictory, and unfocused such commentary would inevitably be. Of course you could man up and actually comment on the subject matter, but I know that frightening effort would likely make you pee your pants and cry and whatnot. I can see why you prefer the arrested-development elementary school mode in which you operate. You think that by acting like someone from whom a lucid, salient single sentence can't be expected, you're off the hook for having to form a coherent thought. The problem is that only someone with your child's view of things actually thinks that such posturing fools anybody.
Really? Which "mass media" did I recite? Be specific. Or, more likely, is it that you're bothered that there are actually a lot of people who make the same observations about the subject at hand. You know, because... it's the truth? Your content-less, no-substance whining is always at its most shrill when you don't like reality. So, I can see why you're reflexively calling it "propaganda," because that - as usual - is your attempt to avoid addressing the matter. Which you can't do, because you're scared of thinking about it, and finding out you're wrong. What's it like to be so scared of reality? That's a pretty childish way to carry on, but it's consistent with your level of discourse, so that follows. Note that you're several posts deep on this, and haven't managed to string together a single sentence yet that so much as begins to actually address the subject. Hilarious.
Wow, you really are unable to read your own posts, aren't you? I address the topic, you cannot, ever. Consider getting some help for that cognitive issue.
Milo isn't a troll in the true sense, he's just a fuckwit who is determined to make a fool of himself in public.
But the only way that's relevant here is that he carries on that way in the service of an ideological leaning of which the Twitter CEO disapproves. He's welcome to ban anybody he wants from his private service. But the phony outrage that only applies to jerks on the other team, while jerks who support his preferred politicians are allowed to thrive in the twitterverse - that's the issue. He can do as he likes, but lying about the standards involved is just another Silicon Valley liberal showing his variable standards and towing the SJW line because it's useful for his politics (or, he thinks it is).
It's not about whether he was offensive. Twitter LOVES offensive. But only when it's in the service of their CEO's political orientation. It really is that simple. If you're offensive on his team, then there's no friction. If you're offensive on the team he hates, then you're evil and must be banned. It's the very definition of the SJW phony selective faux outrage strategy.
Public employee salaries are part of government budgets. Those are public records. That's not the same as the public knowing your personal income. You might work as the local librarian, but also work part time for a family business, or have some equities you inherited from a dead parent, or be receiving income from a private settlement (say, from an insurance claim) that is only viable for as long as you don't violate a signed non-disclosure agreement. Yest, the taxpayers have every right to know what they are paying their employees. That is NOT the same as having access to a public employee's tax returns, which an include all sorts of other private information.
Where I live, tax returns are a matter of public record. Please provide a moral justification for treating them in any other fashion.
Because your personal choices about business dealings, charitable donations, what sort of bonuses you might give to your personal assistant or landscaper, and a thousand other things are private and can be kept that way if you choose to do so. Why should, for example, a business competitor get to be able to go over your personal tax return and figure out which new businesses or activities you're investing in? Why should the public get to know what sort of interest rate you got on your home loan, or which medical procedures you're paying for? That you're so used to your government making all of those things public that you can't understand why it's intrusive is pretty unsettling, actually. I feel sorry for your fellow citizens, whichever Orwellian nation it is you're living in.
You're confusing personal bankruptcy with one of many businesses doing so. Those are not the same thing. The businesses file their own taxes. Any business that isn't a pass-through LLC has to. If someone owns a bunch of business entities, and one or several of them fail to the point where bankruptcy protection is involved, then there are public records involved - because the matter goes before a court. Which doesn't have much to do with the personal income taxes of the person (or one of the people) who owned shares of that company.
If you really want scandalous, pay attention to the giant money-laundering operation that is the Clinton Foundation.
And even as you say there IS something wrong with what I specifically said, you can't bring yourself to ever, ever actually say what it is. Your response to any on-topic comment is simply ad hominem snark. And here you've done it again. Absolute lack of any substance. You can't make yourself do it. It's an actual problem for you, isn't it? You know when someone says something you don't like, but you can't formulate a counterpoint, ever, and simply blather like a kid. Very consistently, though! Just read back through your own response to the comment on the actual subject matter, and what you've said since: absolutely nothing but craven ad hominem. Why is that? What are you afraid of?
Hey look! More smug deflection! Whatever you do, be sure to absolutely never talk about the subject at hand, right? Just drive by, dish out some juvenile snark, and avoid at all costs attempting to make a point. Why the compulsion? Were your feelings hurt when you were thrown off an elementary school debate team, because you couldn't ever actually say anything on topic? Did you have some sort of traumatic event revolving around your being asked to actually string together complete thoughts to explain why you're actually opening your mouth? Really - what is it that prevents you from ever doing anything but just drooling out lazy, middle-school-level shallow snark? It's a curious personality problem you're wrestling with, there.
So, I'll help you out again. You're complaining that you're unable to parse English sentences when they happen to address topics you find uncomfortable. Given your usual childish defensiveness, we'll have to assume that's your most coherent method of expressing your discomfort over the communication you pretend you can't understand. Your tender feelings are hurt because you don't like having to think about why you act the way you do. I can see why it makes you feel all anxious and close to having a tantrum when someone points out the intellectual shortcomings of those who turn to the phony outrage and faux hurt feelings characterized by the PC/SJW types - pretending you're annoyed is the principle way you avoid ever actually engaging in on topic conversation. You know, just like many children do - why do the hard work of thinking when you can just feign a tantrum and fool yourself into thinking that your simpleton's attempt at insults are bamboozling your audience, right?
Thanks for being exhibit A in the very thing being discussed: your juvenile deflection is the same level of childish rhetoric as the phony antics of the PC/SJW crowd. Right out of same playbook. Anything to avoid actual engagement, because then you'd have to confront how little you actually have to say. That's exactly what plagues the PC types, and their solution is very similar to yours. No wonder identifying that touches a nerve with you, huh?
Hey, look! You once again cannot address any of the substance - not even one specific remark, regardless of how simple - and instead of formulating even one thought of your own, must dish out some of your usual lazy ad hominem, and then use someone else's content to try to make the point you can't on your own? Not even on such a simple subject? That's a really odd thing you've got going on there.
So, what's your specific objection? Is it that you don't find similar behavior in both academia and civil groups? No? Should I once again write you a series of your own thoughts that you can pick from, so you can communicate?
Are you trying to *invoke a higher authority*? I ran your post through Google Translate. It's still indecipherable.
I know, pretending you can't understand things is your hobby. But surely you're not so removed from the actual goings-on in the real world that you understand how in, for example, an academic setting... a person who cannot tolerate having their world view questioned, and who cannot use the usual PC toolkit to shut up the person questioning their premises and critical thinking skills, reflexively speed-dials the Dean Of Sensitivity and convenes a Social Justice Hearing in order to swing the academic ban hammer down on the offending party. The same appeal to authority or deflection to third party defenders (in order to avoid having to coherently explain themselves) is also routinely seen everywhere from PTA meetings, Home Owners Associations, HR Departments, Bowling Leagues and every other flavor of hierarchical organization. As a practitioner of deflect-to-third-party scolding yourself, you know just how this works.
Of course I got all of those names in there. Because that's what we're talking about. Should I use a euphemism? Instead of calling them PC, should we call them "Sensitive-Americans?" The whole point of not being excruciatingly PC is that it preserves the ability to speak frankly, instead of tip-toe-ing around the phony heightened emotional frailties that the SJWs use as a method to hijack culture and control people.
and the accused would shut them down by pointing out how PC it was
Except the accusers were (and are) never shut down by having that observation made. That's the whole point. The rational people point out the nonsense that is the hand-wringing nanny-state-ish PC grievance industrial complex, and the people who are empowered by that movement's nuclear SJW engine are the ones doing the censoring. Yes, PC usually IS crazy, and rarely a legitimate source of critical response, but calling it that does NOT shut down the PC-infected complainer - it just makes them invoke a higher authority to enforce their wishes.
The "original SJW" isn't "people correctly pointing out that someone too self-obsessed about their own snowflake-ness doesn't deserve power over others' speech. The original SJW is simply the silly SJW people we currently see. They are their own thing. People who pointed out the toxicity of those using the world view and tactics of Political Correctness as a weapon in the service of illiberal totalitarianism are simply accurate observers, not "the original SJW." Not sure what your real purpose is in trying to revise history or ignore what the PC/SJW mindset is really all about.
Because the FAA, which is part of the DoT, is a regulatory agency that is run by a political appointee who answers to the president, who runs the executive branch of the government from the White House. If you want to do something that violates regulations, you've got to the someone in the executive branch to get you a waiver so you don't go to jail. Or, you could lobby congress to pass a law that forces the executive branch to change the way that regulatory agency interacts with you (and everyone else who does what you do), but unless you get the law passed with a large majority in the legislature, that guy in the White House can still simply shut it down. And, as the current executive has said many times, he's happy to "use his pen" to change the application of the law or to cherry-pick enforcement of the law as it suits his agenda. Clear?
Slashdot Mirror
I always like it when liberals who want to defend their corrupt union bosses use reasoned, articulate arguments like yours to refute, step by step, each issue raised.
Oh, wait, you didn't do that. You can't bring yourself to try to explain away reality, so you're just using lazy ad hominem in order to deflect. The left: always home to shrill whiners who are scared of forming and expressing their own thoughts. Nope! "What you said makes me feel uncomfortable with the premises on which I've based my entire world view, so I will call you a fucking brainwashed retard to show you how much more intelligent I am and to avoid having to confront the contradictions in my own thinking." Thanks for being such a typical example, and putting it on display.
The American war on unions has been one of the most successful propaganda campaigns that most of alive at this time have ever seen.
Sure, if you consider pointing out and fighting against deeply rooted corruption to be "propaganda." You're practicing propaganda right now, by your own vague standards.
We are only now seeing the results of continual decreases in aggregate spending power that is the result of the failure of the workers to organize both for themselves, and for the greater good.
No, we're seeing the rest of the world finally catch up in their ability to provide the same goods and services that - for several post-war decades - used to be the sole province of US-based businesses.
Instead organizing has become a historical footnote as we descend into a vicious circle brought about by lower aggregate spending as a direct result of decreased worker power.
No, you're seeing the direct result of decreased worker value. A given worker isn't nearly as valuable as they used to be, because we no longer need as many file clerks, receptionists, people pushing carts full of parts around a factory, riveters, welders, flour millers, ditch diggers, movable typesetters, bench solderers, fork lift operators, textile workers, and the like. And if you want to make it even more expensive to employ people to fit the jobs along those lines that remain, you're just going to chase that work over the borders even faster. "Worker power," in the way you fantasize about it, is a part of the problem, not a solution. You're trying to wish away a few billion people living in places where the cost of living, regulatory environment, and tax landscape are far more competitive than in the US.
You want more jobs, and more companies fighting over hiring people at higher wages? Get behind fewer regulations and lower taxes. Stop chasing the people you consider your enemies (employers) out of the country.
You are topic free
And yet it's the topic on which I commented that kicked off your latest infantile, substance-less rant. You contradict yourself, even on such a simple thing. No wonder you don't want to risk your fragile self esteem by trying to construct a response on topic that's actually being discussed. That's how brittle your psyche is. Just another scared little troll with nothing to say.
No, I merely responded
Without a lick of context or on-topic substance of any sort. As usual. Because you're afraid of actually speaking on topic.
Don't down other people's actions, it may be the same actions you will need one day.
I will need to burn down my local convenience store? Why will I need to do that? Please be specific.
Those aren't "people." Those are agents provocateurs planted by the FBI (and/or other law enforcement).
Really? Hundreds of them at a time, huh? And the people who are smashing windows and burning stuff are on video, and identified by their neighbors as being familiar local thugs ... all working secretly working for the FBI, those crafty devils! Are you even listening to yourself?
A drone flying high overhead has no preventative role, it can only be punitive.
No, it allows the police to act in a preventative way without having to risk the presence of so many officers and equipment on the ground where they're not even needed. That's the whole point. If a riot starts boiling over, move the resources to where they're needed - don't put more resources than you can afford everywhere, even where they're not needed, just in case. And if you can spot a group of people lighting up molotov cocktails down the block before those "protesters" have managed to burn down a whole row of businesses, you are very much in preventative mode.
Armed crackers in a stand-off with the FBI because some white privilege rancher want access to BLM land is what always comes to mind when I see "BLM protesters".
Yeah, I can see how you'd rather "see" that than see people looting the businesses in their own neighborhoods, burning down city blocks, chanting about wanting to see dead police officers, and cheering when cops are murdered. It's a lot more fun to "see" things that don't involve so much destruction and death.
I think the more fascinating question is what YOU expect to gain with your pattern of snarky juvenile drive-by comments that very carefully NEVER touch on the subject at hand. What personality defect is it that compels you to do that? Who do you think you're persuading, exactly? Really, do tell. It's strange to see such a pattern of deliberately visiting threads so that you can just dish out some childish hate, leave no comment that in any way expresses a basis for your vitriol, and then has you coming back to compulsively do it over and over again. So, care to comment on the actual subject matter? Still can't muster the intellectual integrity for that? No? Why not? What are you afraid of, when it comes to using your own words? Don't be afraid. Maybe ask your mom for some help.
You know what WOULD be hilarious at this point? If you actually even once overcame your cowardice and commented on topic. That would be shocking, but funny because I think it's safe to say it would be completely irrational ramblings. But we'll never know, because you're such a coward, so afraid of how you'll sound if you ever try to explain the basis for your childish tantrums. So we're forced to imagine, based on your completely substance-less history, how vapid, self-contradictory, and unfocused such commentary would inevitably be. Of course you could man up and actually comment on the subject matter, but I know that frightening effort would likely make you pee your pants and cry and whatnot. I can see why you prefer the arrested-development elementary school mode in which you operate. You think that by acting like someone from whom a lucid, salient single sentence can't be expected, you're off the hook for having to form a coherent thought. The problem is that only someone with your child's view of things actually thinks that such posturing fools anybody.
Really? Which "mass media" did I recite? Be specific. Or, more likely, is it that you're bothered that there are actually a lot of people who make the same observations about the subject at hand. You know, because ... it's the truth? Your content-less, no-substance whining is always at its most shrill when you don't like reality. So, I can see why you're reflexively calling it "propaganda," because that - as usual - is your attempt to avoid addressing the matter. Which you can't do, because you're scared of thinking about it, and finding out you're wrong. What's it like to be so scared of reality? That's a pretty childish way to carry on, but it's consistent with your level of discourse, so that follows. Note that you're several posts deep on this, and haven't managed to string together a single sentence yet that so much as begins to actually address the subject. Hilarious.
Wow, you really are unable to read your own posts, aren't you? I address the topic, you cannot, ever. Consider getting some help for that cognitive issue.
Milo isn't a troll in the true sense, he's just a fuckwit who is determined to make a fool of himself in public.
But the only way that's relevant here is that he carries on that way in the service of an ideological leaning of which the Twitter CEO disapproves. He's welcome to ban anybody he wants from his private service. But the phony outrage that only applies to jerks on the other team, while jerks who support his preferred politicians are allowed to thrive in the twitterverse - that's the issue. He can do as he likes, but lying about the standards involved is just another Silicon Valley liberal showing his variable standards and towing the SJW line because it's useful for his politics (or, he thinks it is).
It's not about whether he was offensive. Twitter LOVES offensive. But only when it's in the service of their CEO's political orientation. It really is that simple. If you're offensive on his team, then there's no friction. If you're offensive on the team he hates, then you're evil and must be banned. It's the very definition of the SJW phony selective faux outrage strategy.
Public employee salaries are part of government budgets. Those are public records. That's not the same as the public knowing your personal income. You might work as the local librarian, but also work part time for a family business, or have some equities you inherited from a dead parent, or be receiving income from a private settlement (say, from an insurance claim) that is only viable for as long as you don't violate a signed non-disclosure agreement. Yest, the taxpayers have every right to know what they are paying their employees. That is NOT the same as having access to a public employee's tax returns, which an include all sorts of other private information.
a number of
And that number is ... 4?
Where I live, tax returns are a matter of public record. Please provide a moral justification for treating them in any other fashion.
Because your personal choices about business dealings, charitable donations, what sort of bonuses you might give to your personal assistant or landscaper, and a thousand other things are private and can be kept that way if you choose to do so. Why should, for example, a business competitor get to be able to go over your personal tax return and figure out which new businesses or activities you're investing in? Why should the public get to know what sort of interest rate you got on your home loan, or which medical procedures you're paying for? That you're so used to your government making all of those things public that you can't understand why it's intrusive is pretty unsettling, actually. I feel sorry for your fellow citizens, whichever Orwellian nation it is you're living in.
You're confusing personal bankruptcy with one of many businesses doing so. Those are not the same thing. The businesses file their own taxes. Any business that isn't a pass-through LLC has to. If someone owns a bunch of business entities, and one or several of them fail to the point where bankruptcy protection is involved, then there are public records involved - because the matter goes before a court. Which doesn't have much to do with the personal income taxes of the person (or one of the people) who owned shares of that company.
If you really want scandalous, pay attention to the giant money-laundering operation that is the Clinton Foundation.
And even as you say there IS something wrong with what I specifically said, you can't bring yourself to ever, ever actually say what it is. Your response to any on-topic comment is simply ad hominem snark. And here you've done it again. Absolute lack of any substance. You can't make yourself do it. It's an actual problem for you, isn't it? You know when someone says something you don't like, but you can't formulate a counterpoint, ever, and simply blather like a kid. Very consistently, though! Just read back through your own response to the comment on the actual subject matter, and what you've said since: absolutely nothing but craven ad hominem. Why is that? What are you afraid of?
Hey look! More smug deflection! Whatever you do, be sure to absolutely never talk about the subject at hand, right? Just drive by, dish out some juvenile snark, and avoid at all costs attempting to make a point. Why the compulsion? Were your feelings hurt when you were thrown off an elementary school debate team, because you couldn't ever actually say anything on topic? Did you have some sort of traumatic event revolving around your being asked to actually string together complete thoughts to explain why you're actually opening your mouth? Really - what is it that prevents you from ever doing anything but just drooling out lazy, middle-school-level shallow snark? It's a curious personality problem you're wrestling with, there.
So, I'll help you out again. You're complaining that you're unable to parse English sentences when they happen to address topics you find uncomfortable. Given your usual childish defensiveness, we'll have to assume that's your most coherent method of expressing your discomfort over the communication you pretend you can't understand. Your tender feelings are hurt because you don't like having to think about why you act the way you do. I can see why it makes you feel all anxious and close to having a tantrum when someone points out the intellectual shortcomings of those who turn to the phony outrage and faux hurt feelings characterized by the PC/SJW types - pretending you're annoyed is the principle way you avoid ever actually engaging in on topic conversation. You know, just like many children do - why do the hard work of thinking when you can just feign a tantrum and fool yourself into thinking that your simpleton's attempt at insults are bamboozling your audience, right?
Thanks for being exhibit A in the very thing being discussed: your juvenile deflection is the same level of childish rhetoric as the phony antics of the PC/SJW crowd. Right out of same playbook. Anything to avoid actual engagement, because then you'd have to confront how little you actually have to say. That's exactly what plagues the PC types, and their solution is very similar to yours. No wonder identifying that touches a nerve with you, huh?
Hey, look! You once again cannot address any of the substance - not even one specific remark, regardless of how simple - and instead of formulating even one thought of your own, must dish out some of your usual lazy ad hominem, and then use someone else's content to try to make the point you can't on your own? Not even on such a simple subject? That's a really odd thing you've got going on there.
So, what's your specific objection? Is it that you don't find similar behavior in both academia and civil groups? No? Should I once again write you a series of your own thoughts that you can pick from, so you can communicate?
Are you trying to *invoke a higher authority*? I ran your post through Google Translate. It's still indecipherable.
I know, pretending you can't understand things is your hobby. But surely you're not so removed from the actual goings-on in the real world that you understand how in, for example, an academic setting ... a person who cannot tolerate having their world view questioned, and who cannot use the usual PC toolkit to shut up the person questioning their premises and critical thinking skills, reflexively speed-dials the Dean Of Sensitivity and convenes a Social Justice Hearing in order to swing the academic ban hammer down on the offending party. The same appeal to authority or deflection to third party defenders (in order to avoid having to coherently explain themselves) is also routinely seen everywhere from PTA meetings, Home Owners Associations, HR Departments, Bowling Leagues and every other flavor of hierarchical organization. As a practitioner of deflect-to-third-party scolding yourself, you know just how this works.
Of course I got all of those names in there. Because that's what we're talking about. Should I use a euphemism? Instead of calling them PC, should we call them "Sensitive-Americans?" The whole point of not being excruciatingly PC is that it preserves the ability to speak frankly, instead of tip-toe-ing around the phony heightened emotional frailties that the SJWs use as a method to hijack culture and control people.
and the accused would shut them down by pointing out how PC it was
Except the accusers were (and are) never shut down by having that observation made. That's the whole point. The rational people point out the nonsense that is the hand-wringing nanny-state-ish PC grievance industrial complex, and the people who are empowered by that movement's nuclear SJW engine are the ones doing the censoring. Yes, PC usually IS crazy, and rarely a legitimate source of critical response, but calling it that does NOT shut down the PC-infected complainer - it just makes them invoke a higher authority to enforce their wishes.
The "original SJW" isn't "people correctly pointing out that someone too self-obsessed about their own snowflake-ness doesn't deserve power over others' speech. The original SJW is simply the silly SJW people we currently see. They are their own thing. People who pointed out the toxicity of those using the world view and tactics of Political Correctness as a weapon in the service of illiberal totalitarianism are simply accurate observers, not "the original SJW." Not sure what your real purpose is in trying to revise history or ignore what the PC/SJW mindset is really all about.
btw why is "white house" involved at all?
Because the FAA, which is part of the DoT, is a regulatory agency that is run by a political appointee who answers to the president, who runs the executive branch of the government from the White House. If you want to do something that violates regulations, you've got to the someone in the executive branch to get you a waiver so you don't go to jail. Or, you could lobby congress to pass a law that forces the executive branch to change the way that regulatory agency interacts with you (and everyone else who does what you do), but unless you get the law passed with a large majority in the legislature, that guy in the White House can still simply shut it down. And, as the current executive has said many times, he's happy to "use his pen" to change the application of the law or to cherry-pick enforcement of the law as it suits his agenda. Clear?