Free Speech or Social Justice

[Ethel mermania]

Sadly still better than the alternatives presented.

Well that is just objectively false.

I don't think you know what the word objective means.

But enough of this thread jack. How bout getting back on topic?

[Zoice]

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.

Why, because he isn't PC? Jesus man, the reason that PC/SJW/whatever you want to call it can be bad is because it can promote censorship and echo chambers.

Do you really think Trump, the furry sweet potato, doesn't live in an echo chamber of yes men? Do you really think that Trump, the guy who sues people when they make a joke about him, and has said he wants to clamp down on the free press, and says he admires dictators like Putin, is anti-censorship? How delusional are you that you think he is going to fix anything?

[New Edom]

At one time or another this has been true for pepole who were anti-war, who were pro gay rights, pro women's rights. In each of these cases they had to win court battles and risk imprisonment to make their points. The same thing is going to happen when it comes to dealing with politically correct censorship. In fact it is happening. The government of Oklahoma is repeatedly bashing against the Supreme Court. The American Law Institute has rejected afirmative consent. Without common ground and agreed pon values that make compromise possible, two possibilities exist: apathy or conflict. It appears that it will be conflict.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and without friction there is no traction to keep something moving. Conflict is a part of any social change, since actions to protect marginalized groups often means overcoming that friction to move forward towards a better society. Cooperation is most certainly desirable, and the current issues of the time particularly, in LGBT+ issues, has shown how radically society can turn public opinion, and how cooperating most people can be, but forces of reaction are inevitable.

Sometimes, overcoming that force comes through force, such as anti-discrimination laws, the outlawing of hate speech, and things of that nature, to overcome and ineffectualize current prejudices and fear tactics, which are present in soceity. The unforunate truth is such legislation is necessary solely because a group within society, at times large and at times small, propagates such a need for the. The degree of force is something which varies from issue to issue. Some things, like same-sex marriage, can be legalized through legal precident, and some require more extreme force, as it did with the ending of racial segregation, in which the military had to be called out to integrate the races, against public outcry, widespread fear, and threats of violence.

I have not seen anything that would show that public opinion in any way favours your cause, or sees political correctness as an issue, and this seems to be even less with younger generations, which are in fact largely supportive, nor do I personally find issue with political correctness whatsoever. but far be from me to keep anyone to try and advocate for their preferred society. If you want to see yourself as a Warrior against the Oppression of Political Correctness (or WOPC) you can do so.

If there's no mutual concept of justice and fairness, no sense of common values regarldess of particular political aims, then why should an appeal to help marginalized people work at all?

Why for instance should right wing people try to help LGBT people, or native Americans or Canadians? These groups form a small percentage in reality out of a large population. Why bother? Or why help feminist causes? After all only 20% of people really support feminism. Why not knock down influential lobby groups that support social justice causes by whatever means necessary?

In fact, i get the impression that what you are saying is a dare. Like "we dare you to try to knock us down, we are powerful!" Well, fair enough then. There is no common ground you are saying, so why should your side not just be seen as opponents to be politically destroyed, their legacy undone and swept under the carpet?

And more importantly, if social justice people don't care if they alienate liberal and moderate people with stupid hair splitting arguments, threats to fire them and humiliate them in public if they don't agree lockstep with an overzealous agenda, why should those people not continue their exodus towards the right? Why should they accept unnecesary self sacrifice to appease a stupid, narrow minded, unfocused, ignorant mob of people who are in fact no better than the people they hate?

[Frenline Delpha]

Why should they accept unnecesary self sacrifice to appease a stupid, narrow minded, unfocused, ignorant mob of people who are in fact no better than the people they hate?

I would argue that it sometimes is worse, at least in modern time. Now, have they done as much damage as Nazism? No, but they do seem to be worse than neo-nazis nowadays.

[Noraika]

--snip--

You make a lot of claims about social justice, and about the widespread existence of an influential group of SJWs, but, to be honest, you use quite a bit of rhetoric, but not a lot of proof. Surely some form of report shows that a great deal of people identify as SJWs, and support a totalitarian and hate-filled agenda, or something similar, and that this viewpoint within the Social Justice community?

Right now the topic is about freedom of speech. The banning of hate speech is neither totalitarian, authoritarian, nor a violation of free speech. The enforcing of anti-discrimination measures isn't either. Personally, you seem to have a strong opposition to a form of Social Justice, which fankly just does not exist outside of the extremes of the spectrum.

And no...no it was not a dare, nor do I view myself to belong to an 'us', for you to take on. You'd be surprised to know that I personally don't like hostility between either side of the argument, and don't want to see the "us vs them" continue, and think it rather silly and counterproductive, but you're free to take it however you like though.

[The Princes of the Universe]

Why should they accept unnecesary self sacrifice to appease a stupid, narrow minded, unfocused, ignorant mob of people who are in fact no better than the people they hate?

I would argue that it sometimes is worse, at least in modern time. Now, have they done as much damage as Nazism? No, but they do seem to be worse than neo-nazis nowadays.

We've seen what people who make the arguments (I'm being extremely generous in calling most of them that) they do can pull when given the chance. They must never be allowed into formal power.

[Zynndia]

To me, free speech is important and is a tenet of a civil democracy.

But free speech should not include hate speech. Freedom is an amorphous concept, and when it comes to individual freedoms, it can get tricky.

You are free to say what you want (but not be free from consequence – bear that in mind).

But people are also free to be safe from discrimination (or at least should be).

If you say something about a systemically marginalised group in society that is reinforcing the systemic oppression – that has tangible effects, as the system is causing the marginalised groups tangible impacts e.g. higher rates of mental health issues, self-harm and suicide.

So where do we draw the line? I would say you are free to say what you want, unless it is dangerously discriminatory/incites violence against already marginalised groups.

It is why in Australia, I support our 18C clause prevent racial discrimination.

[Free Missouri]

To me, free speech is important and is a tenet of a civil democracy.

But free speech should not include hate speech. Freedom is an amorphous concept, and when it comes to individual freedoms, it can get tricky.

You are free to say what you want (but not be free from consequence – bear that in mind).

But people are also free to be safe from discrimination (or at least should be).

If you say something about a systemically marginalised group in society that is reinforcing the systemic oppression – that has tangible effects, as the system is causing the marginalised groups tangible impacts e.g. higher rates of mental health issues, self-harm and suicide.

So where do we draw the line? I would say you are free to say what you want, unless it is dangerously discriminatory/incites violence against already marginalised groups.

It is why in Australia, I support our 18C clause prevent racial discrimination.

So basically like in the US where there has to be not only a call to action but it has to actually be likely to lead to horrible consequences.

[Zynndia]

no i dont think a call to action is required

i think if they are a marginalised group already, using the system of oppression against them should be enough to prosecute

e.g. a public official calling queer people f*ggots and saying they deserve to be lynched

it isn't a call to action but its abhorrent, reinforces violence and bolsters the oppression.

[The Princes of the Universe]

e.g. a public official calling queer people f*ggots and saying they deserve to be lynched
it isn't a call to action but its abhorrent, reinforces violence and bolsters the oppression.

Oh HELL no. I wanna know who the hell wants me dead so I can do my part to ensure they don't get reelected. Your plan would make them clam up unless they're one of the rare politicians who actually is as stupid as (s)he acts.

[Galiantus VII]

e.g. a public official calling queer people f*ggots and saying they deserve to be lynched
it isn't a call to action but its abhorrent, reinforces violence and bolsters the oppression.

Oh HELL no. I wanna know who the hell wants me dead so I can do my part to ensure they don't get reelected. Your plan would make them clam up unless they're one of the rare politicians who actually is as stupid as (s)he acts.

This is exactly why free speech, even in the context of hate speech, is essential. I hate racism, but since real racists are silenced so quickly whenever they get organized, people on both the left and the right can't identify the real racists. This is dangerous to both sides of the debate and does nothing to protect anyone from racism - in fact, it might aid racists politicians.

ICC: Casually glances at Donald Trump... *nods*

[New Edom]

Oh HELL no. I wanna know who the hell wants me dead so I can do my part to ensure they don't get reelected. Your plan would make them clam up unless they're one of the rare politicians who actually is as stupid as (s)he acts.

This is exactly why free speech, even in the context of hate speech, is essential. I hate racism, but since real racists are silenced so quickly whenever they get organized, people on both the left and the right can't identify the real racists. This is dangerous to both sides of the debate and does nothing to protect anyone from racism - in fact, it might aid racists politicians.

ICC: Casually glances at Donald Trump... *nods*

Yeah my court is still in session on Trump on this issue, but I generally agree. However I am starting to become really cynical about this issue. I don't see any real difference between either side except in terms of what they value. So one side values family and love of country, another side values the environment and gay rights. It seems impossible to say "hey, I like all of those, why can't I have all of them?" Both sides refuse to look in the miror to any extent, so why bother? Let them burn each other up. So many on this forum even are so quick to deny that the left in particular ever does anything wrong. Like their ideology makes people marvelously perfect, it's sickening. Pull the veil away and it's just a dog eat dog world. So why lsiten when they try to pull at your heartstrings with causes? They're all liars anyway.

[Galiantus VII]

This is exactly why free speech, even in the context of hate speech, is essential. I hate racism, but since real racists are silenced so quickly whenever they get organized, people on both the left and the right can't identify the real racists. This is dangerous to both sides of the debate and does nothing to protect anyone from racism - in fact, it might aid racists politicians.

ICC: Casually glances at Donald Trump... *nods*

Yeah my court is still in session on Trump on this issue, but I generally agree. However I am starting to become really cynical about this issue. I don't see any real difference between either side except in terms of what they value. So one side values family and love of country, another side values the environment and gay rights. It seems impossible to say "hey, I like all of those, why can't I have all of them?" Both sides refuse to look in the miror to any extent, so why bother? Let them burn each other up. So many on this forum even are so quick to deny that the left in particular ever does anything wrong. Like their ideology makes people marvelously perfect, it's sickening. Pull the veil away and it's just a dog eat dog world. So why lsiten when they try to pull at your heartstrings with causes? They're all liars anyway.

It's almost like the current political climate is all about taking random issues and pitting them against one another: "I'm for this, so my opponent is obviously against this". We keep calling each other racists for no reason, and then when a real racist turns up and shoots up a church we can't just recognize that our opponents actually agree with us. Instead, we try and play pin-the-racist-on-my-enemy and cause more division.

As for the election, I have already decided to vote Independent. Trump and Hillary are both so bad I don't think the U.S. will gain anything by playing the "bad or worse" game.

[New Edom]

Yeah my court is still in session on Trump on this issue, but I generally agree. However I am starting to become really cynical about this issue. I don't see any real difference between either side except in terms of what they value. So one side values family and love of country, another side values the environment and gay rights. It seems impossible to say "hey, I like all of those, why can't I have all of them?" Both sides refuse to look in the miror to any extent, so why bother? Let them burn each other up. So many on this forum even are so quick to deny that the left in particular ever does anything wrong. Like their ideology makes people marvelously perfect, it's sickening. Pull the veil away and it's just a dog eat dog world. So why lsiten when they try to pull at your heartstrings with causes? They're all liars anyway.

It's almost like the current political climate is all about taking random issues and pitting them against one another: "I'm for this, so my opponent is obviously against this". We keep calling each other racists for no reason, and then when a real racist turns up and shoots up a church we can't just recognize that our opponents actually agree with us. Instead, we try and play pin-the-racist-on-my-enemy and cause more division.

As for the election, I have already decided to vote Independent. Trump and Hillary are both so bad I don't think the U.S. will gain anything by playing the "bad or worse" game.

Yeah I feel the same way, same as with sexism and with money issues.

[Jello Biafra]

Last night a conservative commentator that I have a clear affinity for, Milo Yiannopoulos, was silenced by Black Lives Matter and related Social Justice movements. After storming the stage, the protestors screamed, threatened to hit the speaker and others. They verbally attacked a black woman who came on stage to tell them to stop, as if she was betraying her race, something she has no control over, because of her political beliefs. The university they were at refused to allow security that this commentator had paid for to remove the disruptors, forcing the event to be cancelled. If this is the future of politics as seen through a social justice lens then I fear for our future. A future where political discourse is ravaged by preventing speakers from exercising their right to speak and demonizing anyone who you disagree with is not a future I wish to participate in, because I probably wouldn't be allowed to participate in it. These actions make clear that one of two things has to go: Free Speech or extreme social justice.

Don't the protestors also have the right to speak?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Last night a conservative commentator that I have a clear affinity for, Milo Yiannopoulos, was silenced by Black Lives Matter and related Social Justice movements. After storming the stage, the protestors screamed, threatened to hit the speaker and others. They verbally attacked a black woman who came on stage to tell them to stop, as if she was betraying her race, something she has no control over, because of her political beliefs. The university they were at refused to allow security that this commentator had paid for to remove the disruptors, forcing the event to be cancelled. If this is the future of politics as seen through a social justice lens then I fear for our future. A future where political discourse is ravaged by preventing speakers from exercising their right to speak and demonizing anyone who you disagree with is not a future I wish to participate in, because I probably wouldn't be allowed to participate in it. These actions make clear that one of two things has to go: Free Speech or extreme social justice.

Don't the protestors also have the right to speak?

Sure, but they don't have the right to storm the stage, threaten violence etc.

[Jello Biafra]

Don't the protestors also have the right to speak?

Sure, but they don't have the right to storm the stage, threaten violence etc.

So merely heckling would be acceptable?

[Herskerstad]

Sure, but they don't have the right to storm the stage, threaten violence etc.

So merely heckling would be acceptable?

No crime in heckling, though any competent security should be allowed to escort said people out if it is a private speaking event.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So merely heckling would be acceptable?

No crime in heckling, though any competent security should be allowed to escort said people out if it is a private speaking event.

Pretty much this.

[New Edom]

Sure, but they don't have the right to storm the stage, threaten violence etc.

So merely heckling would be acceptable?

Heckling is also useless a lot of the time. Over and over again, the public speaker has said things like:
- Black people should have the right to vote for whoever they want to and say so
- Women's rights are a good thing but some activism and some ideas of feminists are questionable and possibly even wrong
- Gay rights are fine but not every disagreement about gay rights is homophobia

It goes into more detail but that's how I'd sum up his general views on the rights of minorities. So people storming a stage, blowing whistles, screaing "fools!" and "dump the Trump!" over and over is hardly using freedom of speech wisely. It's stupid and it should be called stupid. It's not disagreement or debate. And most of all, it's moronic because it doesn't identify actual enemies. It's the equivalent of using your freedom of expression to vomit in public. Wasteful, disgusting and pointless.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

They verbally attacked a black woman who came on stage to tell them to stop, as if she was betraying her race, something she has no control over, because of her political beliefs.

It's hilarious how the socjus mob is now basically behaving as an authoritarian hivemind. Surely letting black women be empowered enough to make their own decisions without is one of the aims of combatting sexism and racism? It's positively Kafkaesque when we've reached the point where we've got movements that exist ostensibly for the furthering and empowerment of minorities getting all outraged and trying to repress a member of that minority when those minorities use their newfound empowerment against the socjus narrative.

On that basis, because social justice groups are demonstrably incapable of actually doing anything to improve the lot of demographics that are disadvantaged, I'd go for free speech every day of the week. At least if someone expresses a hateful ideology, that gives you the opportunity to point out how utterly stupid it is.

^This in spades. Free speech over identity politics, and free speech over reciprocal, "means to an end" movements.

[Jello Biafra]

So merely heckling would be acceptable?

No crime in heckling, though any competent security should be allowed to escort said people out if it is a private speaking event.

I do question the nature of calling it a private speaking event, given its location on the campus of a university.

[Jello Biafra]

So merely heckling would be acceptable?

Heckling is also useless a lot of the time. Over and over again, the public speaker has said things like:
- Black people should have the right to vote for whoever they want to and say so
- Women's rights are a good thing but some activism and some ideas of feminists are questionable and possibly even wrong
- Gay rights are fine but not every disagreement about gay rights is homophobia

It goes into more detail but that's how I'd sum up his general views on the rights of minorities. So people storming a stage, blowing whistles, screaing "fools!" and "dump the Trump!" over and over is hardly using freedom of speech wisely. It's stupid and it should be called stupid. It's not disagreement or debate.

It's not debate, but it is disagreement.

And most of all, it's moronic because it doesn't identify actual enemies. It's the equivalent of using your freedom of expression to vomit in public. Wasteful, disgusting and pointless.

I'd say that the idea is that the speaker and those who agree with him would be identified as the enemies.

[New Edom]

Heckling is also useless a lot of the time. Over and over again, the public speaker has said things like:
- Black people should have the right to vote for whoever they want to and say so
- Women's rights are a good thing but some activism and some ideas of feminists are questionable and possibly even wrong
- Gay rights are fine but not every disagreement about gay rights is homophobia

It goes into more detail but that's how I'd sum up his general views on the rights of minorities. So people storming a stage, blowing whistles, screaing "fools!" and "dump the Trump!" over and over is hardly using freedom of speech wisely. It's stupid and it should be called stupid. It's not disagreement or debate.

It's not debate, but it is disagreement.

And most of all, it's moronic because it doesn't identify actual enemies. It's the equivalent of using your freedom of expression to vomit in public. Wasteful, disgusting and pointless.

I'd say that the idea is that the speaker and those who agree with him would be identified as the enemies.

They don't know how to identify enemies. People who disagree with you about policy and are willing to debate you in public may be political rivals but they are hardly enemies in the sense of wanting to ruin your life or take what you have from you. If someone doesn't want you to lose your ife, your job, your home, your dignity, how are they an enemy? On the other hand SJWs make it very clear that they want those they see as enemies to lose their jobs and dignity at the very least.

[Frenline Delpha]

It's not debate, but it is disagreement.


I'd say that the idea is that the speaker and those who agree with him would be identified as the enemies.

They don't know how to identify enemies. People who disagree with you about policy and are willing to debate you in public may be political rivals but they are hardly enemies in the sense of wanting to ruin your life or take what you have from you. If someone doesn't want you to lose your ife, your job, your home, your dignity, how are they an enemy? On the other hand SJWs make it very clear that they want those they see as enemies to lose their jobs and dignity at the very least.

They tried to get thunderf00t booted from his position.