SJW's are aspiring rulers...
@Doctor Krieger, you pretty clearly can criticise SJWs. They're criticised every day here!
If you mean they want to make it illegal to criticise them, well, I have never seen any SJW press anything like that. They're typically in favour of freedom of speech to criticise - criticism of current society is what they do.
@Handless Juggler , that's a load of bullsh!t. They're necessarily always opposed to free speech, except when they are the ones speaking. Hate speech legislation and safe space legislation sure as hell aren't being pushed by opponents of SJW'S.
@Doctor Krieger, thanks for the downvote.
I'm not sure I see the connection between. Hate speech isn't the same as criticism. Making it illegal to yell the N-word at me is very different from making it illegal to criticise a modern theory of gender, the latter of which I've never seen advocated. If you have time to reply, I'm open to persuasion.
@Handless Juggler , you conveniently forgot to take into account safe spaces, which are meant explicitly to censor criticism, and you're failing to understand that SJW's commonly brand criticisms as "hate speech" in order to justify censorsing them.
Also, censorship of any kind is terrible, even if the words in quesion only serve to offend others. There is no rational basis for making it illegal to say any word. An emotional basis is meaningless.
Bigotry is the refusal to tolerate another person because of their ideals or beliefs. SJW's are bigots.
Please, quit trying to defend these thin-skinned bigots.
@Doctor Krieger, tfw you can tell someone hasn't even done basic research or they'd know you're right and that the regressive left are the biggest censorship advocates in the first world.
@Handless Juggler , hate speech (like hate crime laws) are extremely difficult to quantify. You end up judging and categorizing people by skin color, sexual orientation, and gender. The government has no place to do that until it literally invents mind reading technology.
SJW's consistently abuse any outlet they can in order to censor and punish their ideological opponents. They cry hate speech based on superficial reasoning to silence those against them. They mass report "offensive" material on every site that isn't actually breaking terms of service. They need to be mocked and ignored, but politicians are taking note and catering to them.
They aren't capable of nuance, everything is on a scale of "what someone is" instead of "who someone is." People like that cannot be trusted with power in a western liberal democracy.
@Doctor Krieger, thanks for the downvote.
I didn't reply to your safe spaces comment because I didn't see why it was relevant. Alice and Gerald can go create a safe space where they can let in people like themselves and can control what messages they hear, but that in no way stops us from criticising them. They can't hear our criticisms, but that's okay. We have the right to speak, but we don't have the right to make them listen.
It's censorship which would be the main challenge. Are many SJWs trying to censor their opponents? If so, I'd like to hear about that, because I agree that's bad. As far as I'm aware, they typically don't want the government to interfere with freedom to criticise them. But as I said, I'm open to persuasion if you have a link or something with a SJW movement asking the government to ban criticism of their views.
@RustyFapwagon, Thank you for saying "regressive left" and not just left. Not all of us lefties are overly-sensitive, inadvertently racist nutjobs.
@RustyFapwagon, ooo, do you have some basic research? As I said, I'm open to persuasion. Let me know of any studies you've read that show SJWs are pushing for censorship of criticism of their views.
@Black Science Man, yup, it's hard to forget that sometimes! Just like not all of those righties are overly-sensitive, advertently fundamentalist nutjobs.
@Handless Juggler , YouTube search literally any Milo's Yiannopoulos speech or debate. The try to block the doors and scream while people are speaking so that they can't voice their own opinion, that's a form of censorship. There's also the more recent prominent feminist screaming at a Lyft driver for having a Hawaiian bobble head and demanding that it be removed, that's a form of censorship. They create lists of words in universities across the US that are "offensive" and shouldn't be used (see UMW for just one example), that's a form of censorship. There was a very vague law that Canada tried to pass under the guise of an "anti-bullying" law that prevented any speech that could offend someone, creating the possibility to censor people with government backing because they make you butthurt.
I could go on these are just some recent ones.
@RustyFapwagon, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Seriously, is that what this misunderstanding was all about? I totally agree that people shout and scream over others (even on the right). We essentially agree, but my definition of censorship (which is the standard one) doesn't cover most of what you mentioned. Even saying "You shouldn't say X" is not censorship in my book.
The last example is, though, so thanks for that. Luckily it didn't pass so we're all good!
Oh, and thanks for the downvote. People really don't like the thought that maybe they're not being censored!
@Handless Juggler , that's the least true thing I've read all day. If sjw's don't like something they will go to extreme measures to silence it.
"Controversial" topic in debate - no debate
"Conservative" speaker at graduation - cancelled
@RustyFapwagon, hey don't blame that on Canada. We have SJW's here, too.
But you can't paint with such a broad brush, so to speak. Not everyone speaking out for civil rights and liberties and whatnot is a social justice warrior.
There's a difference between a discriminatory comment and an offensive one. It's fairly easy to quantify whether something is racist or sexist or whatever. It's impossible to quantify whether something is offensive, because that's opinion based, not fact based. Literally anything can be considered offensive.
It SHOULD be based on context. A dashboard mounted hula girl toy is not sexist. A hula girl themed restaurant that forces the female employees to dress like and constantly dance like hula girls while letting the male employees dress and act normal IS sexist.
Context is what matters most.
@big freedom, oh! Again, I think this community has a VERY different conception of censorship to me (and the dictionary).
Seriously, I agree that SJW deny the right to a platform to speakers they disagree with. That's just not censorship on most people's definition. (I can't get a platform at most universities but I'm not censored - I can say what I want on my blog or here or on Facebook or on the street.) So we don't really disagree, it's just a difference in words.
@Handless Juggler , if the U books a speaker, and they have to cancel that speaker because SJW's have complained about or absolutely thrown a fit over - the sjw's have, in action, censored that speaker.
Rather than expose themselves to alternative ideas, they silence anything that doesn't agree with their (narrow) perspective.
Idgaf what your 'definition' of censorship is. If you don't allow someone to speak because you disagree with them - you are censoring them. Your straw-man argument of "the university doesn't let me speak" is asinine. They aren't letting you speak because you have nothing to say, not because they disagree with you. Please come up with something better than that.
@big freedom, dude, we've revealed our "disagreement" is merely over what the word 'censorship' means. It's not substantial.
@I Are Lebo, you speak sense! :)
@big freedom, don't argue with it. It doesn't have the capacity
@Handless Juggler , Censorship- The act of censoring. Censoring- The active state of being a censor. Censor- 2nd. def; anyone who supervises the manners or moralities of others. 3rd. def; An adverse critic or faultfinder. All the examples given to you are de facto censorship. You have a false understanding of the definition, akin to the ridiculous assumption that racism has to be inherently institutional (which is the same as saying a racist against X from a country that has zero racism against X people is clearly incapable of being a racist). Arguing semantics has value when there is an even split in the accepted definitions but it is clear that you are actively denying the reality; censorship exists via 'SJWs' in scholastic environments. If you want an example, Youtube TrigglyPuff and go on your own adventure. While it is reasonable to expect others to prove their points via 'studies' (which barely exist for either side here), it's your intellectual duty to self-educate.
@TheCruzanator, All that said, of course not all Feminists are like this. Many are good. But what does that matter when the vocal and visual majority is comprised of the scum of this earth? If that becomes the poster-'boy' of a movement then that is the movement.
@TheCruzanator, okay, I had in mind the kinds of definitions that come up when you Google it or go on the Wikipedia page, it's hardly an awful thing to think. But I concede there can be less extreme conceptions, and on those more permissive conceptions SJWs do indeed want censorship. But wow, those second and third definitions you gave are really liberal! An adverse critic? We're censoring each other right now! And everyone on this thread is censoring SJWs!
Anyway, how are you feeling? Do you enjoy these kinds of interactions?
@Hotchkiz, hate crime laws simply punish the ideology in addition to the crime. A crime being conducted out of hatred does not make it any more serious than the same crime conducted under different motives.
Hell, hatred is often the motive of crimes that aren't considered "hate crime" because said hatred is personal and not ideological.
@Handless Juggler , there's a difference between being censored and being dismissed or ignored. That's what a lot of people don't get.
Being regarded as irrelevant is not the same thing as being denied the right to your own opinion
@Doctor Krieger, I think they went with 'hate crime' because they weren't comfortable labelling it as 'racially motivated crime'. (Which also excludes other forms of discrimination)
By increasing the punishment for crimes borne out of racism (which is still the primary form of discrimination), the hope was to dissuade more of these crimes.
@Doctor Krieger, let me put it this way. If you get a couple of your buddies to beat up a coworker that you hate, thats bad. If you and all of your buddies are white and the coworker is black, that's bad too, but it's the same level of bad. But if you beat him up BECAUSE he was black, then it's worse.
@I Are Lebo, absolutely. The right to an opinion isn't the right to a platform for you to spout your opinion.
A lot of people also confuse freedom of speech with freedom from criticism. They think because they are allowed to say X, we aren't allowed to criticise them for saying X.
@I Are Lebo, Although on the Cruz's second and third definitions that *would* be censorship (meaning freedom of speech is compatible with censorship), so if that definition is in common parlance I can see at least one reason for the confusion!
@Handless Juggler , people think that the freedom of speech equals freedom from consequences, and that isn't true either. That's why there's a crime called 'aggravated assault'. It's so that if you antagonize someone else to the point of them losing self control, they get reduced punishment.
@I Are Lebo, yep! Even if I got fired for saying something, I still wouldn't be inclined to say I was being censored. I really did think censorship had to be stronger than that. Apparently that view was enough to be downvoted into oblivion ;)
@Handless Juggler , so rather than refute my argument, you say it's just a disagreement over the definition!? Really? No! It's happening. And calling it something else just diminishes the impact.
Like how we now use the term "human trafficking" because it doesn't sound as bad. Call it what it is! It's kidnapping rape slaves.
Have you ever read George Orwell's 1984? It wasn't supposed to be a "how to" guide. Making new words up so people forget or don't pay attention is a trick used to pacify. I'm not going to fall for it.
@big freedom, I'm confused. I think we both had different definitions of the word 'censorship' in mind, so there's nothing to refute.
Yes I have read 1984. Newspeak was about reducing the number of words and meanings for words. I'm recognising and open to multiple meanings of the word 'censorship'. We cool?
(Incidentally, the concept of censorship in that book was very much the way I was thinking of it in this thread - governments making it illegal to say or think certain things.)
@Handless Juggler , the only thing, the ONLY thing that would constitute a clear violation of freedom of speech is if you are arrested by the police or army as a direct result of expressing an opinion or sentiment.
A lot of Americans truly do not understand what freedom really is. They aren't alone in that, most people don't, but Americans stand out in that regard as they're the ones that are the most vocal about it.
I'm not picking on America. I spend most of my vacations there. But 'the land of the free' it is not. In addition to the most freedom and censorship related controversy amongst any other democratic country, the United States also has the highest percentage of its population imprisoned.
As a whole country, you guys need to step back, reevaluate, and start improving. You don't need Trump to make you great again. You need to do it yourselves.
@I Are Lebo, agreed for the most part. Except the oft trumpeted (pun intended) we have highest incarceration rate. China, Russia, almost all Muslim nations - don't record or disclose prison population rates. We definitely have a lot, but it becomes a freakonomics issue.
Do we have more crime because of the lack of x, y, z or do we have less crime because we have too much a, b,c?
@big freedom, it's neither. It's per capita. It's percentage of the whole, not basic numbers. And yes, the United States of America has a higher imprisoned percentage than either Russia or China.
Denying a problem does not make it go away.
@big freedom, as for why, a big chunk of why so many Americans are in jail is because your system is broken. Many, many people who get out of jail have no choice but to fall back into crime. The system makes it impossible for them to move on with their lives.
@I Are Lebo, I keep getting downvoted and being brought back to this page! Not looking forward to my notifications for the next week....
Strange how this community hates the fact that SJWs aren't actually trying to make it illegal to criticise their views.
@Handless Juggler, oh hello, Can Yew Knot! What a lovely downvoting spree I opened FP to! It's nice to know you'll downvote all my comments in a row even when the thread is several days old.
I hope you feel big and tough.
@Handless Juggler , You are a salty bugger aren't cha'? These threads last for eternity, why is it an issue if someone is presenting their opinion a lil later through the random section? P.S, love these interactions. A battle of wits, which informs the people who read them. Nothing better for society and instilling new seeds and ideas in others' minds, and gaining new views myself! Passive-agressive name-dropping doesn't help ya btw, word of advice and all that. And I shall preempt your next comment! Witness~ I came back here to grab a quote since I liked the way I worded it for another argument with friends. Nothing malicious. GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR, and secondary preempt~ I SAID GOOD DAY
@TheCruzanator, you are a salty bugger, aren't you? Why is it an issue if someone is presenting their opinion on a downvote?
Luckily I like salt, so all is well!
@SpungBab, I honestly thought you said "my crabs"
@SpungBab, oh yeah
@Handless Juggler , Confirmed. SpungBab is Paris Hilton.
@YouJustLostTheGame, confirmed. I just lost the game. 😭
@Handless Juggler , it would've made sense tho
@SevenX, nothing wrong here
This guy who is blocking the door and keeping me chained up. Can't criticize someone so darn muscular.
@Laika the Space Dog, Just remember to use the safe word and he'll let you go. You remember the safe word, right? It's easy.
@YouJustLostTheGame, pronounced : xylophone
Can't criticize that...
@Azing, but .... Ok
@Azing, Narcissist. ;)
There is no one above criticism. Criticism helps guide improvement. There are people who cannot handle criticism, though, and you need to watch your step around them because they will ruin your life
Voltaire also said that the Holy Roman Empire wasn't Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire, and he was god damned right. Long live Basileia Romaion!!!
please upvote me I want to look clever
This is actually really simple ... Probably going to cop flack for it but ... Cracker, ni**er ... What's acceptable?
Well, this doesn't quite work with the first amendment in place. It might have back then, but not now.
@TheKen42, Good thing people are trying to repeal it, huh?
Black people and muslims. Oh..
I will find you, and I will criticize you.
I mean, you can't really criticize people you have to see again to their face without consequences; social or financial. I guess everyone rules everyone.