Commie terrorists BTFO. Bakery awarded $11 million after being targeted by student activist protests

[Basil II the B.S]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-owners-targe/

The owners of an Ohio bakery who sued for libel after being targeted by student protests won Friday an $11 million verdict against Oberlin College.
A Lorain County jury ordered Oberlin to pay $11 million in compensatory damages to Gibson’s Bakery, a local fixture since 1885 that was beset by protests and racism allegations after three black students were arrested for shoplifting the day after the 2016 presidential election.
“The jury saw that Oberlin College went out of their way to harm a good family and longtime business in their community for no real reason, and the jury said we aren’t going to tolerate that in our community anymore,” Owen Rarric, an attorney for the Gibsons, told Legal Insurrection.
The award, which could triple at Tuesday’s hearing on punitive damages, came as a warning to universities that encourage social-justice activism as student protests spill from the campus to the local community.
“The verdict sends a strong message that colleges and universities cannot simply wind up and set loose student social justice warriors and then wash their hands of the consequences,” said Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson, who runs the conservative Legal Insurrection website.

---

---

Bakery owners said they lost business after Oberlin students held protests accusing them of discrimination. The student Senate passed a resolution claiming Gibson’s had “a long history of racial profiling,” and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo was accused of passing out an anti-Gibson’s flier.
Students boycotted the bakery, while the college cut off and then resumed its contract for baked goods.
Oberlin argued it was not responsible for the students’ actions. Meanwhile, the three students pleaded guilty to shoplifting and aggravated trespass while issuing statements absolving the bakery of racism.
In 2017, Gibson’s sued the college for libel; tortious influence with business relationships and contracts, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, culminating in the nearly month-long trial in Elyria, Ohio.
“The students eventually pleaded guilty, but not before large protests and boycotts intended to destroy the bakery and defame the owners,” Mr. Jacobson said. “The jury appears to have accepted that Oberlin College facilitated the wrongful conduct against the bakery.”

A great victory for the side of good against the absolute evil that goes under the name of ''social justice''. A these vermins rely primarily on defamation, calling anyone who doesn't agree with their extremist stance ''white supremacist'' or ''Hitler'', I believe this is a terrific result which will hopefully have a following. It's also pretty important that it's a college that will pay the damage as the academia has become a training ground for these people, following the take-over of the extreme left. We need more libel lawsuits against the communist media, academia and tech to put them out of business because they are ruining our countries.

Feel free to discuss how society should best deal with the growing threat of social justice movements.

[Prodromos]

Feel free to discuss how society should best deal with the growing threat of social justice movements.

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it.” - Proverbs 22:6

It's all about habits, and habits are formed in the home.

“The foundations of national Morality must be laid in private Families. In vain are Schools, Accademies and universities instituted, if loose Principles and licentious habits are impressed upon Children in their earliest years.” - John Adams

[95thrifleman]

Someone explain to me how these students are "commies" or "terrorists"? Maybe it's because I'm British and grew up in an era where we had REAL communists and terrorists.

[Basil II the B.S]

Your side relies on terrorizing political opponents that they will have their lives ruined once they are called racist by your media. It's psychological and mediatic terrorism. Still terrorism.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Terrorism is an inappropriate term given its common use, but I'm used to clickbait being the norm in these threads by this author, so I'll stick to the point. Good on the bakery for succeeding against a textbook case of attempted 'mob justice', as non-physical as the mob was and vain their attempts ultimately were. Unfortunately, I doubt it is a result that will make any real solution. Students and their cliques have a way of subverting well-intended institutions, and unless the school can provably be linked to a) encourage this instance or b) encourage this method of expression with poor or no evidence, I think the result is fruitless and nothing will change as the instigating students simply pick another target at another time, going scot-free as the institution suffers.

You cannot weed out this behavior by merely shutting down businesses and organizations. More will come up even if you are successful, and the side against you is so strong that it's a fruitless effort anyways. It's the individuals and the ringleaders especially who pull off the nonsense, and if anyone should be held accountable, it is the direct instigators of provably false content.

I wouldn't call for TWC to be shut down if a couple of moderators were pulling borderline illegal and certainly unethical stunts without internal consequences. I'd take out the given moderators immediately and investigate who let that condition happen in the first place, and proceed to allow more competent administrators oversee them if their own negligence, utter incompetence or driving those given moderators on was the cause. The latter takes much longer and much more effort than the former, but simply shutting down the system completely despite the fact it does a great deal of other things that don't hinder anyone or even help is a narrow resolution that can only things up for a great many people who were never involved in the things that caused the problem in the first place. The comparison is nearly equivalent to calling for a widespread dismantling of institutions. The call is to delete a school without even looking at what else it does or does not, without an effort to weed out the problematic individuals. Take out ringleaders, extreme elements and conscious enablers, and the rest will be far more agreeable.

[Sir Adrian]

And some people still try to argue that feminism and sjw are not hate based ideologies.,

[♔The Black Knight♔]

I attend one of Oberlin's peer institutions in the area (I've played sports at Oberlin's facilities, I know people who attend Oberlin, and my school shares alot of resources with the school), and Oberlin has built a reputation of being the most "progressive" and "left" wing college in the state (and it would probably compete for the #1 spot in the nation) to the point where most people perceive it as rediculous (there is an anti-Israeli club for example). This is one of the first institutions that would admit both women and African Americans in the entire country and continues to attempt to carry a legacy of fighting for minorities above and beyond what most schools would in the area.The school itself is certainly not the norm for most colleges in the United States (there are almost no schools where a Dean is going to pass out fliers to denounce a bakery) and it attracts the sort of people that would act like this.

That being said, this puts the college in a bind where it will not act responsibly to address misplaced hate and hurtful protest. It has prided itself as being a facilitator of social justice (a reputation that goes back to it's founding in the 1830s) and it is not going to put its very identity at risk in trying to curb what many students attending had decided was one of main reasons for picking the school over others. A vocal minority would turn on the school and would threaten the reputation that makes Oberlin, Oberlin.

This does not mean that everyone at the school is like this, and in fact, I would argue that this is not representative of the people I know who go there. The people I have talked to about the issue have condemned these actions and they believe most people on campus would feel similar. Most of the people on campus are empathetic people who care about the human beings that they interact with (no matter the context), and it's only a small motivated amount students who would perform actions that harm others for wrong reasons. Kids on campus likely won't do anything about other kids doing stuff like this (if you attended this school, I think you would understand), but this does not mean that they support these actions or are actively engaging in similar activities.

[The spartan]

And some people still try to argue that feminism and sjw are not hate based ideologies.,

Don't forget the NAACP during the Civil Rights movement; they were as bad as the KKK!

[Basil II the B.S]

Don't forget the NAACP during the Civil Rights movement; they were as bad as the KKK!

There you go. SJWs are the ''Civil Rights'' movement and the force of good. People who rely on pathological hatred, fraudolent, ideologically based research, harassment, defamation and occasional violence are ''the good guys''.

Terrorism is an inappropriate term given its common use, but I'm used to clickbait being the norm in these threads by this author, so I'll stick to the point. Good on the bakery for succeeding against a textbook case of attempted 'mob justice', as non-physical as the mob was and vain their attempts ultimately were. Unfortunately, I doubt it is a result that will make any real solution. Students and their cliques have a way of subverting well-intended institutions, and unless the school can provably be linked to a) encourage this instance or b) encourage this method of expression with poor or no evidence, I think the result is fruitless and nothing will change as the instigating students simply pick another target at another time, going scot-free as the institution suffers.

You cannot weed out this behavior by merely shutting down businesses and organizations. More will come up even if you are successful, and the side against you is so strong that it's a fruitless effort anyways. It's the individuals and the ringleaders especially who pull off the nonsense, and if anyone should be held accountable, it is the direct instigators of provably false content.

I wouldn't call for TWC to be shut down if a couple of moderators were pulling borderline illegal and certainly unethical stunts without internal consequences. I'd take out the given moderators immediately and investigate who let that condition happen in the first place, and proceed to allow more competent administrators oversee them if their own negligence, utter incompetence or driving those given moderators on was the cause. The latter takes much longer and much more effort than the former, but simply shutting down the system completely despite the fact it does a great deal of other things that don't hinder anyone or even help is a narrow resolution that can only things up for a great many people who were never involved in the things that caused the problem in the first place. The comparison is nearly equivalent to calling for a widespread dismantling of institutions. The call is to delete a school without even looking at what else it does or does not, without an effort to weed out the problematic individuals. Take out ringleaders, extreme elements and conscious enablers, and the rest will be far more agreeable.

The thing is, it's incredibly hard to find the mob starters. Often it's just a dude on social media who says something that isn't even particularly defamatory, gets shared with increasing grades of distortion until someone in the media picks it up, publishes a completely bs story because that's what he read online. So, who's to blame? Hard to point fingers like that. Colleges on the other hand are the training ground for these people. Criticial theorists/intersectionality advocates pretty often go on social media saying that they can't make a difference between teaching and activism adding moral justifications for their argument. There's no scientific integrity. Thus I think it's right to hit universities since they are the ones who ultimately allow this to happen.

You go at the root of the problem and that's the academia.

I attend one of Oberlin's peer institutions in the area (I've played sports at Oberlin's facilities, I know people who attend Oberlin, and my school shares alot of resources with the school), and Oberlin has built a reputation of being the most "progressive" and "left" wing college in the state (and it would probably compete for the #1 spot in the nation) to the point where most people perceive it as rediculous (there is an anti-Israeli club for example). This is one of the first institutions that would admit both women and African Americans in the entire country and continues to attempt to carry a legacy of fighting for minorities above and beyond what most schools would in the area.The school itself is certainly not the norm for most colleges in the United States (there are almost no schools where a Dean is going to pass out fliers to denounce a bakery) and it attracts the sort of people that would act like this.

That being said, this puts the college in a bind where it will not act responsibly to address misplaced hate and hurtful protest. It has prided itself as being a facilitator of social justice (a reputation that goes back to it's founding in the 1830s) and it is not going to put its very identity at risk in trying to curb what many students attending had decided was one of main reasons for picking the school over others. A vocal minority would turn on the school and would threaten the reputation that makes Oberlin, Oberlin.

This does not mean that everyone at the school is like this, and in fact, I would argue that this is not representative of the people I know who go there. The people I have talked to about the issue have condemned these actions and they believe most people on campus would feel similar. Most of the people on campus are empathetic people who care about the human beings that they interact with (no matter the context), and it's only a small motivated amount students who would perform actions that harm others for wrong reasons. Kids on campus likely won't do anything about other kids doing stuff like this (if you attended this school, I think you would understand), but this does not mean that they support these actions or are actively engaging in similar activities.

Moderate liberals have had a taste of this bs with the Bret Weinstein/Evergreen college case. I know there are plenty trying to come up with ideas to stop this nonsense, like for instance Jonathan Haidt, but honestly, they are getting cornered as well. Same goes with the guys who did the Grievance Studies hoax. Even though the discipline is completely discredited for anyone who's not in it, administrators don't dare kicking these people out of the academia. Everyone knows it's a small number of people. However, between a majority that doesn't care and a minority that cares, who's going to prevail?

[The spartan]

There you go. SJWs are the ''Civil Rights'' movement and the force of good. People who rely on pathological hatred, fraudolent, ideologically based research, harassment, defamation and occasional violence are ''the good guys''.

Yeah, the Civil Rights movement were the "SJWs" of their time. How would they not be? And the faced many similar accusations during the time; they were called Communists, terrorists, subversives, and compared to the KKK themselves. You would have been adamantly against them and their goals back then.

[Heathen Hammer]

Nah, modern "progressives" have hardly any connection to civil rights movements of the 60s (they would be pro-segregation back then), they are kinda what evangelicals were in 80s and 90s, at least on the intellectual level.

[♔The Black Knight♔]

Moderate liberals have had a taste of this bs with the Bret Weinstein/Evergreen college case. I know there are plenty trying to come up with ideas to stop this nonsense, like for instance Jonathan Haidt, but honestly, they are getting cornered as well. Same goes with the guys who did the Grievance Studies hoax. Even though the discipline is completely discredited for anyone who's not in it, administrators don't dare kicking these people out of the academia. Everyone knows it's a small number of people. However, between a majority that doesn't care and a minority that cares, who's going to prevail?

A motivated minority will win over a majority only if their movement has potential to empower the majority in contrast to the status quo. We may disagree due to our understanding of human nature, but ideology is a tool for self interest (meaning its self selected) rather than a mental framework that is just imposed on someone through indoctrination. If the majority doesn't like the implications of an ideology on society, they will push back against it just like the courts did in this case.

[The spartan]

Nah, modern "progressives" have hardly any connection to civil rights movements of the 60s (they would be pro-segregation back then), they are kinda what evangelicals were in 80s and 90s, at least on the intellectual level.

Sure, but that's only true if you know nothing about American history during that time period.

[Heathen Hammer]

Indeed, only people who know nothing of American history of that period would equate anti-segregation movements of 60s with modern "progressives", who are much more comparable to evangelicals of 80s and 90s, again, given how both are easily manipulated by propaganda from mainstream media and embrace fanatical anti-intellectualism.

[The spartan]

You know the NAACP is still around, right? Many people who took part in the movement itself are still around, such as Democrat congressman John Lewis, and they aren't Trump supporters. Your weird history denial is starting to reach a fever pitch. I know you like if history would be "X", but it's not going to be "X" for you. You really need to accept this.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

The thing is, it's incredibly hard to find the mob starters. Often it's just a dude on social media who says something that isn't even particularly defamatory, gets shared with increasing grades of distortion until someone in the media picks it up, publishes a completely bs story because that's what he read online. So, who's to blame? Hard to point fingers like that. Colleges on the other hand are the training ground for these people. Criticial theorists/intersectionality advocates pretty often go on social media saying that they can't make a difference between teaching and activism adding moral justifications for their argument. There's no scientific integrity. Thus I think it's right to hit universities since they are the ones who ultimately allow this to happen.

You go at the root of the problem and that's the academia.

Who's to blame? You told me. The 'someone in a media' is a goddamn idiot who doesn't know how to fact check. That reality alone is one of the key issues, every bit as culpable as a few bad professors in the batch. The people who are supposed to know something fail to verify what they're writing.

This I consider inexcusable. You can absolutely target this one as a mob starter. Look into the process and you can find a link unusually beset by negligence or malice, and said links are typically individual, not institutional, where you lump perfectly decent people and ideas that may have been mislead into the extreme elements that are responsible either by their gross negligence or malicious intent to spread obvious, universally agreeably .

Holding individuals accountable sounds a lot more plausible and a lot more likely to actually get somewhere rather than the mass purge you're suggesting without an idea of how to go about it other than the untenable 'burn it all' implication.

For that matter, the individuals that conflate teaching a subject with activism should be skewered accordingly (in the figurative, argumentation sense), and in the perfect execution of that idea, you'll find that academia is suddenly far less culpable than other factors in play, including the far more insidious root of parents who can do a great deal more damage at an earlier point than any college.

[tgoodenow]

Maybe their esteemed alumni Lena Dunham will bail them out. There’s a possibility it will be 33 million total, when the decision on punitive damages is reached next week.

Basil: on a an SJW related note, have you seen the news about Dr Pizza?

[Basil II the B.S]

A motivated minority will win over a majority only if their movement has potential to empower the majority in contrast to the status quo. We may disagree due to our understanding of human nature, but ideology is a tool for self interest (meaning its self selected) rather than a mental framework that is just imposed on someone through indoctrination. If the majority doesn't like the implications of an ideology on society, they will push back against it just like the courts did in this case.

Yes and no. You went close to what's called the ''dictatorship of the intolerant minority''.
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-...y-3f1f83ce4e15

It has nothing to do with empowerment. It has to do with tolerance and apathy. The motivated, intolerant minority will prevail long term simply because it's unwilling to compromise, while the tolerant majority will make concessions to appease. That's why for a handful that can't eat peanut products, they are banned altogether from menus. Or why Egypt went from 95% Christian to Muslim majority in the course of over a thousand years. You can join the latter, not quit.

It's irrelevant whether the majority doesn't like it. What's relevant is whether they tolerate it. That's also why I favour a radical approach with SJWs. You can't be tolerant with the intolerant. That's Popper's Paradox btw. If society wants to survive the threat, then they must be pushed in a corner where noone makes any concession whatsoever because they know they are crazy.

Basil: on a an SJW related note, have you seen the news about Dr Pizza?

Not surprised. ''Male feminists''. He's not even the first one lately. An SJW Smite community manager got caught also soliciting sex from kids and there was some other ''male feminist'' that got caught doing similar stuff.

And to celebrate ''Pride Month'' you have Huff Post celebrating 11 years old Drag Queens. I always thought the slippery slope argument was bs, but let's face it: it's real. You look at a gay pride parades, they always bring in pre-teen kids. And the liberal media celebrate that.

Who's to blame? You told me. The 'someone in a media' is a goddamn idiot who doesn't know how to fact check. That reality alone is one of the key issues, every bit as culpable as a few bad professors in the batch. The people who are supposed to know something fail to verify what they're writing.

This I consider inexcusable. You can absolutely target this one as a mob starter. Look into the process and you can find a link unusually beset by negligence or malice, and said links are typically individual, not institutional, where you lump perfectly decent people and ideas that may have been mislead into the extreme elements that are responsible either by their gross negligence or malicious intent to spread obvious, universally agreeably .

Holding individuals accountable sounds a lot more plausible and a lot more likely to actually get somewhere rather than the mass purge you're suggesting without an idea of how to go about it other than the untenable 'burn it all' implication.

For that matter, the individuals that conflate teaching a subject with activism should be skewered accordingly (in the figurative, argumentation sense), and in the perfect execution of that idea, you'll find that academia is suddenly far less culpable than other factors in play, including the far more insidious root of parents who can do a great deal more damage at an earlier point than any college.

On social media it easily involves tens of thousands of people. It gets insanely complicated to determine responsibility, unless there are specific flagrant cases (there are, but those are easily trackable - I don't have a problem with punishing those). What if someone shares something out of sarcasm? Also guilty? There are a lot of grey areas.

The professors are generally key instigators of this kind of behaviours.

Edit: well, it's now in elementary schools as well.


Given that kids are hardly ever legally responsible, when they start , who's to blame? The school.

[♔The Black Knight♔]

Yes and no. You went close to what's called the ''dictatorship of the intolerant minority''.
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-...y-3f1f83ce4e15

It has nothing to do with empowerment. It has to do with tolerance and apathy. The motivated, intolerant minority will prevail long term simply because it's unwilling to compromise, while the tolerant majority will make concessions to appease. That's why for a handful that can't eat peanut products, they are banned altogether from menus. Or why Egypt went from 95% Christian to Muslim majority in the course of over a thousand years. You can join the latter, not quit.

Yes, this is about power. Why do you think people push ideologies in the first place?

Ultimately, power is the deciding factor whether someone it motivated or not. If someone is apathetic to changes made by motivated people, it either improved their own personal freedom or at the very least it didn't impact them negatively. Your peanut example does very little to impact the self interests of the majority (and this isn't considering that many restaurants don't cater to the peanut allergy crowd). In terms of Egypt (or any region that assimilated their culture and religion), it was obviously perceived as beneficial to conform to the conqueror's ways to obtain better treatment and be able to maintain or increase their personal power. The people who fight on are those who perceive the power loss to be too detrimental to their self interest.

That being said, Basil, tell me how a small group of radical leftists will come to dominate over everyone? There hasn't been an empire on this planet that has survived long term. Any dominant ideology has splintered, died or evolved over time. Tell me why this ideology (the ones utilized by crazy Oberlin students) would be any different? Even if these people were to dominate society, the ideology itself would already be prone to fracture and disintegrate due to the type identity politics and oppression olympics that are played. It would cannibalize itself as soon they tried reorganizing society (and it already is kind of self destructive now).

This is even assuming that leftist ideology is a coherent thing that can be defined and has central tenets that a majority of people agree upon. It's such an expansive term that incorporates the ideas of millions of people that should not be grouped together, and it makes discussions like these difficult. What separates the moderate left from extreme left? Who are the extreme left exactly and do they actually define how they themselves think about issues? Is there any variety in the extreme left in how they approach things? These things aren't defined in any of these threads, which makes the "global conflict" of good vs evil hard to engage.

[the_mango55]

Jesus if I had a law professor that used “SJW” unironically I would have to transfer, because clearly a degree from that school is worthless.