Leftists Freak Out over William Shatner Criticizing Social Justice Warriors


#1

Haha! Many Star Trek fans are super sad and mad now. Many others think he’s hilarious and are happy.

William Shatner, the actor best known for his role as Captain Kirk on Star Trek, expressed his distaste for social justice warriors and was promptly attacked by SJWs on Twitter and in the media.

Leftists Freak Out over William Shatner Criticizing Social Justice Warriors on Twitter - Breitbart


#2

For more fun and Shatner tweets:
<div class=“lazyYT” data-youtube-id=“yyU2upw48JI” data-width=“480” data-height=“270” data-parameters=“feature=oembed&wmode=opaque”></div>
warning: Language


#3

I hadn’t known anything about William Shatner’s socio-political views. I knew all too much about George Takai’s; he seemed like a nice affable guy at a sci-fi convention I attended in '87, but he’s spewed a lot of vitriol on those opposed to homosexual activism.


#4

Well of course; it was Government interference in how he lived his own life. And in 1987, anti-sodomy laws were still on the books, so it wasn’t just the Marriage question he had to contend with, but a legal system that was antagonistic to his mere existence, and to which he had only assurances wouldn’t be used to prosecute him arbitrarily.

No one should have to live like that; a Sword of Damocles dangling over his head, never knowing if or when it would fall.


#5

The only people living with a sword over their heads are the victims of the queer mafia and their crime is not endorsing the perversions embraced by the queer mafia.

And the idea that being a queer put you in risk of judicial discipline in 1987 America is laughable.


#6

Very true, RET. The impetus for all this crap is the APA electing board members who were, themselves, queer and then jammed through the elimination of homosexuality as a psychosis–or even as a neurosis. They then followed that up by insisting that homosexuality–and, by extension, all other sexual perversions–was “genetic” in origin without a scintilla of science behind that theory.


#7

homosexuals are like that. And they’ve become more ascerbic and aggressive as certain presidents have legitimized their deadly personal habits.


#8

John Geddes Lawrence was prosecuted for it in 1998. It was his case that finally destroyed anti-sodomy laws in 2003.

So yes RET, it was a real threat.

If the law wasn’t such a big deal, then there shouldn’t have been any resistance to removing them.


#9

In every state in the union, the DEFINITION of sodomy was anal or oral sex OR sex with an animal. So you’re telling us that it’s NOW legal and permissible to have sex with animals because “anti-sodomy laws were ‘destroyed’ in 2003?” I will agree that the government has no business regulating sex between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes. I still think the government DOES have an interest in “regulating” sex between two consenting adults in public places AND in prohibiting beastiality.


#10

Then why does the Texas penal code list the two separately?

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 43. PUBLIC INDECENCY

> I will agree that the government has no business regulating sex between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.

Well then good; John Geddes Lawrence was in his apartment at the time, so you agree that his prosecution was an overreach.


#11

The Texas Penal Code was updated in 1974. Prior to that, the definition was as I posted above. It also was changed because prior to 1974, it was an AFFIRMATIVE defense to a charge of rape IF the victim did NOT physically resist the attack. We had a rapist acquitted under this rule when the rapist–after the attack–told the victim to get him a glass of water and, if she ran, he’d kill her baby sleeping in the same room…and she did. That change ALSO re-instituted the death penalty in Texas after it had been declared “unconstitutional” two years earlier…during which time, incidentally, there was a rash of armed robberies in metro areas in which everyone in the stores were killed. When caught, the perps said, (paraphrased) “The worst that can happen to us for armed robbery is life in prison. Since there’s no death penalty in Texas, why not kill the witnesses so we won’t get caught since the worst that can happen to us for murder is–life in prison?”


#12

I used to enjoy his Facebook posts, but he’s become shriller than ever fighting for equality that already exists. He’s an SJW and deserves mockery.


#13

The Supreme Court, in Lawrence vs Texas, overreached its authority, just as it overreached in Wade and in homosexual marriages. Seems that our loud mouth sexual deviant crowd is more important than the rule of law and the defined and limited powers granted to our federal government.

JWK