Free Speech or Social Justice

[Kelinfort]

http://www.economist.com/news/internati ... owstighter


"Neoliberals and SJW's working together"

[Ethel mermania]

Vox (An SJW Rag) Editor advocates riots if Trump comes to your town.

https://twitter.com/emmettrensin/status ... 8855156742

Why do you focus only on the horrors of SJW's being dumb and not the horrors of anti-SJW people like Trump being dumb? It's not as if the Social Justice side is the only one that does dumb shit.

It's not trump folks causing the disruption. It's the SJW's who are committing the violence. So yes they get the hit.

[Alvecia]

Tradcon Republicans are not the alt-right, nor the anti-SJWs main contingent. I also criticized the bathroom bills, have frequently advocated pro-choice on demand, etc.

That's good of you, but it's people that are opposed to SJW's that are trying to push the bathroom bills, with the justification that either "trans people aren't real, they're a lie by the SJW's" or "it's just a bathroom, who cares".

As for the alt-right, you can't seriously be trying to imply that they're free of blame for doing really really dumb shit.

Edit:
Jesus man... the left is not anti-white or anti-male xD You have to realize how ridiculous you sound. The left tries to recognize advantages that whites and males have, and even the playing field. You're pretty damn blind if you think the world is perfectly even already. There are plenty of leftists that go too far, but that doesn't mean the whole left wing is all bullshit or whatever shit you're trying to say.

The whole SJW vs Alt-Right is just tiresome now.
Extremists fighting extremists.
Extremist calling moderates extremists, extremists fighting moderates.
Moderates calling moderates extremists, moderates fighting moderates.
It's like people have forgotten the world isn't black and white.

[Gauthier]

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21699906-freedom-speech-retreat-muzzle-grows-tighter?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/themuzzlegrowstighter


"Neoliberals and SJW's working together"

"SJWs are just as bad as drug cartels, jihadis and China even if the worst they do is shout down people they disagree with."

[Zoice]

Why do you focus only on the horrors of SJW's being dumb and not the horrors of anti-SJW people like Trump being dumb? It's not as if the Social Justice side is the only one that does dumb shit.

It's not trump folks causing the disruption. It's the SJW's who are committing the violence. So yes they get the hit.

In that instance, yes. But, again, the Trump side is not free of dumb shit (which is redundant, because they're the Trump side).

[Ostroeuropa]

It's not trump folks causing the disruption. It's the SJW's who are committing the violence. So yes they get the hit.

In that instance, yes. But, again, the Trump side is not free of dumb shit (which is redundant, because they're the Trump side).

Can you find a single instance of Trump supporters actively seeking out places where the people who disagree with them congregate with the intention to be violent towards them.

Which instances of violence from trump supporters do you know of?

[Noraika]

The whole SJW vs Alt-Right is just tiresome now.
Extremists fighting extremists.
Extremist calling moderates extremists, extremists fighting moderates.
Moderates calling moderates extremists, moderates fighting moderates.
It's like people have forgotten the world isn't black and white.

What's even more ironic is that both sides often accuse the other side of not cooperating, but at the same time often do so in a way that inflammatory and divisive in its rhetoric, and portrays the 'enemy' as dehumanized by grouping them all, including moderates, into groups, which just makes the situation even less likely to move in the direction of proactive discussion.

[Ethel mermania]

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21699906-freedom-speech-retreat-muzzle-grows-tighter?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/themuzzlegrowstighter


"Neoliberals and SJW's working together"

"SJWs are just as bad as drug cartels, jihadis and China even if the worst they do is shout down people they disagree with."

Except it's not shouting, they are physically attacking trump supporters. Funny that.

https://gma.yahoo.com/violence-breaks-t ... ories.html

[Alvecia]

The whole SJW vs Alt-Right is just tiresome now.
Extremists fighting extremists.
Extremist calling moderates extremists, extremists fighting moderates.
Moderates calling moderates extremists, moderates fighting moderates.
It's like people have forgotten the world isn't black and white.

What's even more ironic is that both sides often accuse the other side of not cooperating, but at the same time often do so in a way that inflammatory and divisive in its rhetoric, and portrays the 'enemy' as dehumanized by grouping them all, including moderates, into groups, which just makes the situation even less likely to move in the direction of cooperating.

"All they do is shout down points they disagree with"
"Nothing an Alt-righter/SJW says can be trusted"

[Elwher]

Nope. Even if you went full on Singapore, and banned anything that might cause offence to anyone, it would not be a violation of the typically accepted definition of freedom of speech. In addition, most areas of Social Justice don't concern speech.

"Westley, what about the S.J.W.s?"
"Social Justice Warriors? I don't believe they exist."

I don't think you have a good handle on either topic. They are not aligned to each other.

One is about freedom of expression, the other is about equality. Unequal speech, " women are the weaker sex " is a sterotypical and harmful to women as it denigrates their abilities. Soical justice would supress such speech as harmful. Social justice is about equality of outcome, which has nothing to do with preserving free speech.

And, as SJ has no interest in preserving freedom of speech, they are mutually exclusive. And since freedom of speech is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution and SJ is not, freedom of speech wins.

[Zoice]

In that instance, yes. But, again, the Trump side is not free of dumb shit (which is redundant, because they're the Trump side).

Can you find a single instance of Trump supporters actively seeking out places where the people who disagree with them congregate with the intention to be violent towards them.

Which instances of violence from trump supporters do you know of?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... vents.html

The anti-Trump protesters didn't always throw the first punch. (And leave it to Trump to applaud the violence *sigh*)

[Noraika]

What's even more ironic is that both sides often accuse the other side of not cooperating, but at the same time often do so in a way that inflammatory and divisive in its rhetoric, and portrays the 'enemy' as dehumanized by grouping them all, including moderates, into groups, which just makes the situation even less likely to move in the direction of cooperating.

"All they do is shout down points they disagree with"
"Nothing an Alt-righter/SJW says can be trusted"

This entire thread's premise is kind of a representation of that dynamic isn't it? And the posts within it have also displayed this. I didn't realize it until just now.

[Zoice]

I don't think you have a good handle on either topic. They are not aligned to each other.

One is about freedom of expression, the other is about equality. Unequal speech, " women are the weaker sex " is a sterotypical and harmful to women as it denigrates their abilities. Soical justice would supress such speech as harmful. Social justice is about equality of outcome, which has nothing to do with preserving free speech.

And, as SJ has no interest in preserving freedom of speech, they are mutually exclusive. And since freedom of speech is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution and SJ is not, freedom of speech wins.

Some people have no interest in preserving freedom of speech. That isn't all people who like the idea of a just society.

[Ethel mermania]

It's not trump folks causing the disruption. It's the SJW's who are committing the violence. So yes they get the hit.

In that instance, yes. But, again, the Trump side is not free of dumb shit (which is redundant, because they're the Trump side).

I am going to vote for trump. And weirdly I know how not to beat up people who disagree with me.

[Zoice]

In that instance, yes. But, again, the Trump side is not free of dumb shit (which is redundant, because they're the Trump side).

I am going to vote for trump. And weirdly I know how not to beat up people who disagree with me.

That's very big of you. Most people who will vote against Trump are just as capable of that as you.

[Ostroeuropa]

Can you find a single instance of Trump supporters actively seeking out places where the people who disagree with them congregate with the intention to be violent towards them.

Which instances of violence from trump supporters do you know of?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... vents.html

The anti-Trump protesters didn't always throw the first punch.

So you failed to actually respond to the challenge I posed, and have instead demonstrated that when violent protestors come into Trump rallies, sometimes they get hit back, and sometimes Trump supporters will attack a protester who is near them (Only after, it's worth noting, three whole weeks of violent incidents from protestors at trump rallies, and only during those protestors attempting to disrupt a public event and illegally protesting in a way which violates the attendees rights to freedom of assembly)

The first incident where a Trump supporter attacks first is:
3. April 11, 2016, in Albany, New York.

What happens, immediately after he attacks the protestor?

The entire surrounding crowd, all of trump supporters, restrains him and drags him away, berating him for attacking the protestor and telling him not to do that.

This is the same as all incidents of violence at Trump rallies. Isolated individuals who the crowd then turns on, restrains, and turns over to the authorities. Compare that to the mass and unrestrained violence from anti-trump rioters.
These groups are not equivalent.


It's ridiculous that you'd pretend they were.

Further, Several of the "Violent incidents" listed as performed by Trump supporters was grabbing hecklers and trying to escort them from the premises.

Note that no incidence of violence by a trump supporter uses a weapon they brought with them to the scene in preparation, whereas it is now common for the anti-trump protestors to do so. This signals intent to go somewhere specifically to be violent.

Several of the incidents are also the result of security personnel or the police.

All in all, you're comparing apples to oranges. Though the media has done all it can to paint the Trump side as uniquely violent, and dismissed concerns about rioters violence in a similar manner to you here, so I understand why you have the impression.

The majority of incidents listed where Trump supporters "act" first are:
Police or security personelle or Trump supporters acting to restrain and remove someone from an area where they are protesting illegally and violating the crowds constitutional rights, not acting specifically to cause physical harm to someone.

Protesters are not allowed to disrupt a public meeting in progress. That's not how the right to protest works, and in several states it is a jailable offense.

[Ethel mermania]

I am going to vote for trump. And weirdly I know how not to beat up people who disagree with me.

That's very big of you. Most people who will vote against Trump are just as capable of that as you.

You are the one who called trump voters dumb shits. Yet it seems the other side doesn't understand what political discourse is. And since so many are social justice warriors, I do not find that lack of understanding surprising in the least.

[Zoice]

That's very big of you. Most people who will vote against Trump are just as capable of that as you.

You are the one who called trump voters dumb shits. Yet it seems the other side doesn't understand what political discourse is. And since so many are social justice warriors, I do not find that lack of understanding surprising in the least.

I said that Trump voters do dumb shit (like voting for Trump). Smart people can do dumb shit.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://www.losangelescriminallawyer.pro ... eting.html

Relevant.

While the First Amendment guarantees a person his or her freedom of speech, there are circumstances where the exercise of free speech interferes with other people's lawful right of assembly. As a result, it is illegal to disturb a public meeting under California Penal Code Section 403 PC.

A prosecutor must prove the following elements to convict a defendant of disturbing a public meeting:

The defendant intentionally committed acts that violated implicit customs or explicit rules for governing a public meeting

The defendant knew or reasonably should have known that his or her acts violated those customs or rules

AND the defendant's acts substantially and unlawfully interfered with the conduct of the meeting

A person can only be convicted of disturbing a meeting if his or her acts themselves, and not the message or expressive content of the act, substantially interfered with the meeting's conduct. For example, at a public meeting regarding military funding, an anti-war group assembles with signs showing gory photographs depicting the effects of war. As long as the group does not act to interfere with the meeting, their message would be protected as free speech under the First Amendment. It is the manner of speech, and not the speech itself, that may be punished criminally.

In addition, this offense requires that the defendant intentionally disturb the meeting or interfere with other group's abilities to hold a meeting. If the disturbance was merely accidental, there would be no criminal liability under the statute.

[Zoice]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... vents.html

The anti-Trump protesters didn't always throw the first punch.

So you failed to actually respond to the challenge I posed, and have instead demonstrated that when violent protestors come into Trump rallies, sometimes they get hit back, and sometimes Trump supporters will attack a protester who is near them (Only after, it's worth noting, three whole weeks of violent incidents from protestors at trump rallies, and only during those protestors attempting to disrupt a public event and illegally protesting in a way which violates the attendees rights to freedom of assembly)

The first incident where a Trump supporter attacks first is:
3. April 11, 2016, in Albany, New York.

What happens, immediately after he attacks the protestor?

The entire surrounding crowd, all of trump supporters, restrains him and drags him away, berating him for attacking the protestor and telling him not to do that.

This is the same as all incidents of violence at Trump rallies. Isolated individuals who the crowd then turns on, restrains, and turns over to the authorities. Compare that to the mass and unrestrained violence from anti-trump rioters.
These groups are not equivalent.


It's ridiculous that you'd pretend they were.

Further, Several of the "Violent incidents" listed as performed by Trump supporters was grabbing hecklers and trying to escort them from the premises.

Note that no incidence of violence by a trump supporter uses a weapon they brought with them to the scene in preparation, whereas it is now common for the anti-trump protestors to do so. This signals intent to go somewhere specifically to be violent.

Several of the incidents are also the result of security personnel or the police.

All in all, you're comparing apples to oranges. Though the media has done all it can to paint the Trump side as uniquely violent, and dismissed concerns about rioters violence in a similar manner to you here, so I understand why you have the impression.

The majority of incidents listed where Trump supporters "act" first are:
Police or security personelle or Trump supporters acting to restrain and remove someone from an area where they are protesting illegally and violating the crowds constitutional rights, not acting specifically to cause physical harm to someone.

I never, ever said that the anti-Trump side is innocent. Why is nuance such a foreign concept to you? Both sides do dumb shit. If you had actually looked at the article you'd see that the earliest examples are all of Trump supporters assaulting protesters first. I'm not saying that either side is innocent, you're the one saying that Trump's is clean, when it clearly isn't (as if the crazy shit they believe wasn't enough).

[Ethel mermania]

You are the one who called trump voters dumb shits. Yet it seems the other side doesn't understand what political discourse is. And since so many are social justice warriors, I do not find that lack of understanding surprising in the least.

I said that Trump voters do dumb shit (like voting for Trump). Smart people can do dumb shit.

Like vote for hillary or bernie, aggreed.

[Zoice]

I said that Trump voters do dumb shit (like voting for Trump). Smart people can do dumb shit.

Like vote for hillary or bernie, aggreed.

Right, instead, you should vote for the wildly unqualified narcissist who thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax, vaccines cause autism, the wall is a good idea, and he can't even deliver a speech without drifting off a tangent about Muslims. Definitely.

[Ethel mermania]

Like vote for hillary or bernie, aggreed.

Right, instead, you should vote for the wildly unqualified narcissist who thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax, vaccines cause autism, the wall is a good idea, and he can't even deliver a speech without drifting off a tangent about Muslims. Definitely.

Sadly still better than the alternatives presented.

[UnjustlyBannedLlamas]

Right, instead, you should vote for the wildly unqualified narcissist who thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax, vaccines cause autism, the wall is a good idea, and he can't even deliver a speech without drifting off a tangent about Muslims. Definitely.

Sadly still better than the alternatives presented.

Well that is just objectively false.

[Frenline Delpha]

I said that Trump voters do dumb shit (like voting for Trump). Smart people can do dumb shit.

Like vote for hillary or bernie, aggreed.

Ethel setting off the fire alarms.