Free Speech or Social Justice

[New Edom]

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.

Yes. They harassed two administrative officials at Yale over halloween costumes until one of them resigned. There are many examples. SJW tactics for silencing opponents include:
- Preventing them from being heard altogether (pulling fire alarms, charging onto stages, shouting and chanting, blowing noise makers, shouting pepole down with repetitive remarks) (Ryserson, U of T, U of M)
- Trying to prevent student organizations from forming with false acusations (U of T, Ryerson, KSU)
- Trying to shut down events with false accusations (PUA gatherings, MRA gatherings)
- Trying to censor the internet not for blatant hate speech but for questioning ideologies at all (UN fiasco, Twittergate)

[The balkens]

They tried to get thunderf00t booted from his position.

Yes. They harassed two administrative officials at Yale over halloween costumes until one of them resigned. There are many examples. SJW tactics for silencing opponents include:
- Preventing them from being heard altogether (pulling fire alarms, charging onto stages, shouting and chanting, blowing noise makers, shouting pepole down with repetitive remarks) (Ryserson, U of T, U of M)
- Trying to prevent student organizations from forming with false acusations (U of T, Ryerson, KSU)
- Trying to shut down events with false accusations (PUA gatherings, MRA gatherings)
- Trying to censor the internet not for blatant hate speech but for questioning ideologies at all (UN fiasco, Twittergate)

This needs to be stopped.

[New Edom]

Yes. They harassed two administrative officials at Yale over halloween costumes until one of them resigned. There are many examples. SJW tactics for silencing opponents include:
- Preventing them from being heard altogether (pulling fire alarms, charging onto stages, shouting and chanting, blowing noise makers, shouting pepole down with repetitive remarks) (Ryserson, U of T, U of M)
- Trying to prevent student organizations from forming with false acusations (U of T, Ryerson, KSU)
- Trying to shut down events with false accusations (PUA gatherings, MRA gatherings)
- Trying to censor the internet not for blatant hate speech but for questioning ideologies at all (UN fiasco, Twittergate)

This needs to be stopped.

I agree. Protest needs to be allowed, arguments need to be allowed, and the freedom to make a point needs to be allowed. However shutting down opposition by criminalizing opinions is a threat to freedom. And as people have been pointing out, preventing people from being even mildly offensive makes it harder to identify the real racists, the real sexists, the real fascists out there. The world has never been an inherently nice place.

[Zoice]

This needs to be stopped.

I agree. Protest needs to be allowed, arguments need to be allowed, and the freedom to make a point needs to be allowed. However shutting down opposition by criminalizing opinions is a threat to freedom. And as people have been pointing out, preventing people from being even mildly offensive makes it harder to identify the real racists, the real sexists, the real fascists out there. The world has never been an inherently nice place.

Full agreement.

[Zoice]

This needs to be stopped.

I agree. Protest needs to be allowed, arguments need to be allowed, and the freedom to make a point needs to be allowed. However shutting down opposition by criminalizing opinions is a threat to freedom. And as people have been pointing out, preventing people from being even mildly offensive makes it harder to identify the real racists, the real sexists, the real fascists out there. The world has never been an inherently nice place.

Full agreement.

[Greater Istanistan]

This needs to be stopped.

What do you suggest that wouldn't be ideological censorship in turn?

[New Edom]

What do you suggest that wouldn't be ideological censorship in turn?

The following:
1. Debates
2. Ecxhanges of information
3. Fair recognition of each party's right o present their views and findings to the public for review and examination
4. The right to engage people entering events with conversation, pamphlets, signs, while not actually preventing them from entering.
5. Accusations where the other party has the right to respond to an impartial body with equal time and equal voice

[Greater Istanistan]

Seems reasonable.

[Neu Leonstein]

The following:
1. Debates
2. Ecxhanges of information
3. Fair recognition of each party's right o present their views and findings to the public for review and examination
4. The right to engage people entering events with conversation, pamphlets, signs, while not actually preventing them from entering.
5. Accusations where the other party has the right to respond to an impartial body with equal time and equal voice

While not unreasonable in principle, I wonder what 5. would look like in practice. Like I said in another thread, you can't require other people to pay equal attention to two sides of an argument. Especially when, let's face it, many of the events shut down by SJW-type activists (however inappropriately) feature opinions that are just plain stupid. As in, inconsistent with the facts, stupid.

That means that trying to shut them down is an overreaction that doesn't need to happen. But your 5. sounds a lot like trying to elevate such opinions until those espousing them can be satisfied that they are talking to an impartial body with equal time and equal voice, rather than the fringe where they belong. We need to be careful not to create false equivalences between arguments by legislating equal air time. The US media has managed to do this with man-made climate change for example, and look where that ended up.

[Atlanticatia]

JW tactics for silencing opponents include:
- Preventing them from being heard altogether (pulling fire alarms, charging onto stages, shouting and chanting, blowing noise makers, shouting pepole down with repetitive remarks) (Ryserson, U of T, U of M)
- Trying to prevent student organizations from forming with false acusations (U of T, Ryerson, KSU)
- Trying to shut down events with false accusations (PUA gatherings, MRA gatherings)
- Trying to censor the internet not for blatant hate speech but for questioning ideologies at all (UN fiasco, Twittergate)

Get over it. None of these things are the state cracking down on things. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from social punishment, marginalization for your views, or being given a platform or easy ability to do certain things.

- People have a right to protest and yell at people they disagree with. Restricting that would be a violation of freedom of speech.
- I'm not sure what these incidents are, but people have a right to object to an organization. Especially if said organization is sanctioned by a students' association and/or funded/accommodated partially by the fees students pay.
- PUA gatherings? Seriously? Pro-rape misogynist neckbeard bullshit can go the fuck away. I think it's good that socially harmful actions are out of the mainstream and are socially punished -- like PUA gatherings, being pro-rape, being a white nationalist, etc. I don't think I'll shed a tear.
- Don't know the background of these incidents, but generally I'm going to need to hear your definition of 'questioning ideologies'.

[Geilinor]

JW tactics for silencing opponents include:
- Preventing them from being heard altogether (pulling fire alarms, charging onto stages, shouting and chanting, blowing noise makers, shouting pepole down with repetitive remarks) (Ryserson, U of T, U of M)
- Trying to prevent student organizations from forming with false acusations (U of T, Ryerson, KSU)
- Trying to shut down events with false accusations (PUA gatherings, MRA gatherings)
- Trying to censor the internet not for blatant hate speech but for questioning ideologies at all (UN fiasco, Twittergate)

Get over it. None of these things are the state cracking down on things. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from social punishment, marginalization for your views, or being given a platform or easy ability to do certain things.

- People have a right to protest and yell at people they disagree with. Restricting that would be a violation of freedom of speech.

Pulling fire alarms is very similar to yelling fire in a crowded theater. That is not a right.

[Prusselanden]

I believe we could have a healthy compromise of both. Everything must be in moderation.

[Atlanticatia]

Pulling fire alarms is very similar to yelling fire in a crowded theater. That is not a right.

Okay, but that's kind of a separate issue. The issue being raised was shouting down and shutting down speakers via loud protesting.

[New Edom]

The following:
1. Debates
2. Ecxhanges of information
3. Fair recognition of each party's right o present their views and findings to the public for review and examination
4. The right to engage people entering events with conversation, pamphlets, signs, while not actually preventing them from entering.
5. Accusations where the other party has the right to respond to an impartial body with equal time and equal voice

While not unreasonable in principle, I wonder what 5. would look like in practice. Like I said in another thread, you can't require other people to pay equal attention to two sides of an argument. Especially when, let's face it, many of the events shut down by SJW-type activists (however inappropriately) feature opinions that are just plain stupid. As in, inconsistent with the facts, stupid.

That means that trying to shut them down is an overreaction that doesn't need to happen. But your 5. sounds a lot like trying to elevate such opinions until those espousing them can be satisfied that they are talking to an impartial body with equal time and equal voice, rather than the fringe where they belong. We need to be careful not to create false equivalences between arguments by legislating equal air time. The US media has managed to do this with man-made climate change for example, and look where that ended up.

Number 5 is basically this: let's say a group wants a speaker to come to a university. Let's say that the student council wants to prevent it. I think that both sides should have to present their views to the proper authorities for review. That is only fair.

[East Catalina]

Pulling fire alarms is very similar to yelling fire in a crowded theater. That is not a right.

Okay, but that's kind of a separate issue. The issue being raised was shouting down and shutting down speakers via loud protesting.

I've yet to see anything categorically illegalizing such behavior.
Even then, it seems it might violate the state action doctrine, or give people the civil right to be protected from loud protesters.

[Kelinfort]

Pulling fire alarms is very similar to yelling fire in a crowded theater. That is not a right.

Okay, but that's kind of a separate issue. The issue being raised was shouting down and shutting down speakers via loud protesting.

I'd still say that's pretty immature and represents a lack of respect for the opposition.

[Minzerland]

They tried to get thunderf00t booted from his position.

Yes. They harassed two administrative officials at Yale over halloween costumes until one of them resigned. There are many examples. SJW tactics for silencing opponents include:
- Preventing them from being heard altogether (pulling fire alarms, charging onto stages, shouting and chanting, blowing noise makers, shouting pepole down with repetitive remarks) (Ryserson, U of T, U of M)
- Trying to prevent student organizations from forming with false acusations (U of T, Ryerson, KSU)
- Trying to shut down events with false accusations (PUA gatherings, MRA gatherings)
- Trying to censor the internet not for blatant hate speech but for questioning ideologies at all (UN fiasco, Twittergate)

Just because Yales been brought up, have a look at this link:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/01/yale- ... fs-to-stop

[Kelinfort]

Yes. They harassed two administrative officials at Yale over halloween costumes until one of them resigned. There are many examples. SJW tactics for silencing opponents include:
- Preventing them from being heard altogether (pulling fire alarms, charging onto stages, shouting and chanting, blowing noise makers, shouting pepole down with repetitive remarks) (Ryserson, U of T, U of M)
- Trying to prevent student organizations from forming with false acusations (U of T, Ryerson, KSU)
- Trying to shut down events with false accusations (PUA gatherings, MRA gatherings)
- Trying to censor the internet not for blatant hate speech but for questioning ideologies at all (UN fiasco, Twittergate)

Just because Yales been brought up, have a look at this link:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/01/yale- ... fs-to-stop

I'm honestly tired of Shakespeare, though.

But that's a pretty tame thing and no doubt, if I were a professor, I'd ignore it. I'd add other poets along the lines of Langston Hughes and Maya Angelou, but I'd laugh their white asses back to the Student Union if they scream any louder.

[East Catalina]

They tried to get thunderf00t booted from his position.

Yes. They harassed two administrative officials at Yale over halloween costumes until one of them resigned. There are many examples. SJW tactics for silencing opponents include:
- Preventing them from being heard altogether (pulling fire alarms, charging onto stages, shouting and chanting, blowing noise makers, shouting pepole down with repetitive remarks) (Ryserson, U of T, U of M)
- Trying to prevent student organizations from forming with false acusations (U of T, Ryerson, KSU)
- Trying to shut down events with false accusations (PUA gatherings, MRA gatherings)
- Trying to censor the internet not for blatant hate speech but for questioning ideologies at all (UN fiasco, Twittergate)

"U of T"? What university is that?

Just because Yales been brought up, have a look at this link:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/01/yale- ... fs-to-stop

I'm honestly tired of Shakespeare, though.

But that's a pretty tame thing and no doubt, if I were a professor, I'd ignore it. I'd add other poets along the lines of Langston Hughes and Maya Angelou, but I'd laugh their white asses back to the Student Union if they scream any louder.

...This is abysmal.
So that all the nazis will clap me on the back as a good black guy, I will say this as a representative of the black community.

[Neu Leonstein]

Number 5 is basically this: let's say a group wants a speaker to come to a university. Let's say that the student council wants to prevent it. I think that both sides should have to present their views to the proper authorities for review. That is only fair.

Yeah, but we are talking about opinions that don't really have a place in a place of learning and education. If someone wants to go to campus and hold a talk about how science shows that the earth is flat, there is good reason to think that this talk shouldn't happen. If someone is convinced that the earth is flat (or black people are stupid, or trans people don't exist, or women belong in the kitchen or whatever), a debate in which they are being provided with sources and references to data and analysis that debunks their views won't change their mind, or the mind of other people agreed with those views in the first place. So all you've achieved is give those people a bigger audience than they would have had otherwise.

[Frenline Delpha]

Number 5 is basically this: let's say a group wants a speaker to come to a university. Let's say that the student council wants to prevent it. I think that both sides should have to present their views to the proper authorities for review. That is only fair.

Yeah, but we are talking about opinions that don't really have a place in a place of learning and education. If someone wants to go to campus and hold a talk about how science shows that the earth is flat, there is good reason to think that this talk shouldn't happen. If someone is convinced that the earth is flat (or black people are stupid, or trans people don't exist, or women belong in the kitchen or whatever), a debate in which they are being provided with sources and references to data and analysis that debunks their views won't change their mind, or the mind of other people agreed with those views in the first place. So all you've achieved is give those people a bigger audience than they would have had otherwise.

What is your opinions on Social Justice courses in college?

[Minzerland]

Just because Yales been brought up, have a look at this link:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/01/yale- ... fs-to-stop

I'm honestly tired of Shakespeare, though.

But that's a pretty tame thing and no doubt, if I were a professor, I'd ignore it. I'd add other poets along the lines of Langston Hughes and Maya Angelou, but I'd laugh their white asses back to the Student Union if they scream any louder.

I'm honestly sick of their crying, 'HE'S A WHITE MALE!!!1!', Shakespeare is arguably one of the most influential people in the history of the English language.

[Neu Leonstein]

What is your opinions on Social Justice courses in college?

You mean as part of degrees? Waste of money. You don't need taught courses to know not to be a dick to other people. I mean, in Kindergarten maybe. But not in university. And that's really what this whole thing boils down to, in the end. "Golden Rule" and all that - and that goes for people across the political spectrum.

[Frenline Delpha]

What is your opinions on Social Justice courses in college?

You mean as part of degrees? Waste of money. You don't need taught courses to know not to be a dick to other people. I mean, in Kindergarten maybe. But not in university. And that's really what this whole thing boils down to, in the end. "Golden Rule" and all that - and that goes for people across the political spectrum.

Well that and the fact that the are based on pseudoscience. Which shouldn't a college course make.

[East Catalina]

Yeah, but we are talking about opinions that don't really have a place in a place of learning and education. If someone wants to go to campus and hold a talk about how science shows that the earth is flat, there is good reason to think that this talk shouldn't happen. If someone is convinced that the earth is flat (or black people are stupid, or trans people don't exist, or women belong in the kitchen or whatever), a debate in which they are being provided with sources and references to data and analysis that debunks their views won't change their mind, or the mind of other people agreed with those views in the first place. So all you've achieved is give those people a bigger audience than they would have had otherwise.

What is your opinions on Social Justice courses in college?

Informing people on philosophical trends identified as such couldn't hurt. At the very least it wouldn't be filled with emotionally loaded language, like the kind of education you get which involves cuckolds and social justice warriors.

I'm honestly tired of Shakespeare, though.

But that's a pretty tame thing and no doubt, if I were a professor, I'd ignore it. I'd add other poets along the lines of Langston Hughes and Maya Angelou, but I'd laugh their white asses back to the Student Union if they scream any louder.

I'm honestly sick of their crying, 'HE'S A WHITE MALE!!!1!', Shakespeare is arguably one of the most influential people in the history of the English language.

They're arguing that the only way you can get inspired is to be introduced to a great writer of your ethnicity and the university should advance that.
I find it tribalistic to suggest such nonsense, but hey I'm Uncle Tom so what does my opinion count?