Foolish SJW Records Herself Berating CVS Employee For Calling Cops On Shoplifters

P. Gardner Goldsmith | September 18, 2020

In “Star Wars,” Darth Vader said of Luke Skywalker, “The Force is strong with this one.”

In “SJW Wars,” the phrase might be, “The FARCE is strong with this one.”

Certainly, this explosive new SJW story seems farcical, yet, it’s quite, quite real.

Cassandra Fairbanks reports for Gateway Pundit:

A woman filmed herself berating a CVS manager in Washington, DC for calling the police on two black shoplifters — and the stunt backfired in her face spectacularly.

Yep. This woman appears to be learning that speaking before thinking is a bad idea, and video-recording the stupidity has even bigger consequences.

Charity Sade, a self-described ‘she/her comedian, writer, activist,’ has locked her Twitter account and changed her handle after the video of her trying to shame the CVS manager for doing his job went viral.




Yep! In fact, Ms. Sade is so “woke” she, like many other SJWs, can twist her mind to embrace the idea that theft is acceptable.

As Fairbanks notes, Sade claimed that the CVS employee had done something wrong by calling the cops over two shoplifters who left the store with stolen merchandise. The pretzel logic came with her first saying to the employee:

It’s not your merchandise. It’s the store’s…

As if the fact that the thieves stole from the CVS store implies that it’s acceptable, that it’s some kind of “downtrodden individuals strike a blow against corporate America” act that will, someday, become the core of a Rage Against the Machine anthem.

The property doesn’t belong to the thieves. It belongs to the people who own the company and who risk their investment and time and good names every day trying to make it a beneficial place for customers to get what they want. And the employee has an agreement with the CVS employer to follow their rules, and reporting shoplifting happens to be one of those agreements.

Of course, Ms. Marquess De Sade has different, more “enlightened” ideas. Ideas that allow her to excuse stealing from a private company.

You decided to call the police on two black people that stole – that allegedly took something from the store -- because you’re willing to uphold the policy and they could’ve lost their lives.

Would she have said the same if the criminals had been some other color?

This borders on the ridiculous, but it’s actually profoundly important, because many foolish progressives in the US, including people at National Public Radio, have promoted the idea that looting, rioting, and theft are, somehow, justified.

Just two weeks ago, NPR promoted its gushing chat with Vicky Osterweil, author of the book, “In Defense of Looting”, which is almost ironic, because NPR operates thanks to the annual government looting of taxpayers like us, and Osterweil’s use of “defense” implies that it’s okay to defend the concept of theft, but not to defend against actual theft.

One wonders if she copyrighted her book, or if she would mind people stealing her book or the profits she makes from it. As Ironclad writes for Newscetera:

Osterweil claims that looting is what happens when people want to express that society isn’t working. She defends it as a ‘mass expropriation of property, mass shoplifting during a moment of upheaval or riot.’ This is nonviolent, she claims, no one gets hurt, ‘it’s not a home invasion…’

Osterweil doesn’t seem to grasp that that “mass expropriation of property” is wrong, and that mas theft, even when given a veneer of rhetorical paint by calling it “mass expropriation of property” is THE EXPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY against someone else’s will.

God gave a message about that to a man named Moses a few years back… Shoot, if only it weren’t so hard to remember…

And the idea that no one gets hurt reflects a profound lack of understanding about economics, work, the division of labor, living standards, harm, and violence itself.

People labor for many reasons, but a couple of the keys are so that they can survive and prosper. If one cannot retain the fruits of his or her labor, his survival is put at risk. Stealing what he or she makes, or threatening to do so, are violent acts that put survival at risk, and no society can survive if it exists under the paradigmatic wrong-headedness that universal thievery is okay and will better lives or foster the incentive to work.

Ms. Sade seems more in line with Karl Marx than all the market-based system that produced the products she used to transmit her idiotic attack to the world.

Welcome to collectivist postmodernism 101.

So, again, the norm for this woman appears to be that theft is okay, and that any ill effects or retribution thieves receive for their initiation of wrongdoing is not the fault of the thieves, but the fault of those who might call others to help apprehend the thieves.

And to cap it off, she tries to get the CVS employee’s name, which, as he points out to her, could make HIM a target for violence from moronic people who agree with her thick-headed idiocy about theft and violence.

Indeed, Sade tries to target the employee for calling the cops on shoplifters, saying he's targeted black people, offering her assumptions about the criminals because of their skin color, and completely overlooking the crime or the agreement the employee has made with his employer, the aggregate consequences for other consumers should shoplifting be seen as a universally "unpunishable" activity, and the fact that her attempt to get the employee's name makes him a target for violence -- which the employee adroitly notes to her. One wonders if she digs theft perpetrated against her and then excused by "people who have less."

So far, the only areas where that idea has been the operational norm are government, and leftist philosophy classes, but now, the concept has trickled down to ignorant people with phones recording their asinine antics at drugstores and then posting them on social media.

Sade has heard from common-sense people about this. So much so, that she shut down her Twitter feed.

Perhaps she’ll have some free time now. Time she might wisely spend considering the fact that any private individual would have been perfectly justified in using violent physical force to defend his property rights against thieves. Time she might spend reading about the terrible effects that collectivism has had in places such as Plymouth Plantation, and nation-states like the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, and Vietnam. Perhaps she can learn Emmanuel Kant’s concept of “universalizability” and see that stealing isn’t a universalizable activity, because, eventually, it causes a breakdown of society, mass starvation, and *zip* no more CVSs.

And we are shown, once more, to guard our purchases wisely, to avoid “comedians” and authors and actors and musicians who use their incomes to attack the very firmament of rights that support the market they deride. We can learn, and act accordingly.