Social Justice and Freedom of Speech

Keep things civil, people, or else we'll put you in time-out.
User avatar
Hilo Takenaka
Bronze
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Down Under^45e45745745745743523232312212357878890774532445657795654376457243543656867973456325
Contact:

Social Justice and Freedom of Speech

Post by Hilo Takenaka » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:46 am

There is a massive debate over social justice and it’s authenticity. Whilst many rally to the cause, others believe it is cancerous. What are your opinions on this topic?

My opinion:
I myself am a classical liberal (you guys can look it up) and I honestly believe that SJWs are... VERY hypocritical. Down below, I will list their hypocrisies
  • Social Justice Warriors say that everyone is equal, BUT some immediately consider your argument invalid if you’re a cisgendered straight white male... the largest portion of Americans. Also, am I the only one who finds it odd that they solely blame white men for slavery, but the African people sold them willingly.

    SJWs argue that females and minorities are treated unfairly. BUT minorities kill <8 times the amount of policemen as much as they kill minorities. Also, the fabled pay gap? There is a mountain load of evidence that proves that it’s just due to business choices.

    Many SJWs consider people who follow right wing ideaology to be racist and Nazis. Yet from what I have said above, they are more guilty of the things they fight. In fact, they’re being fascist for automatically disliking conservatives or white men. Also another fun fact: The Democratic Party is actually now right wing.
So there you have it. My opinion on this whole shabang. I hope I don’t trigger people :\
Image

Snowskeeper
Member
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:46 pm
Gender: Eldritch Abomination
Contact:

Re: Social Justice and Freedom of Speech

Post by Snowskeeper » Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:55 pm

Toffolus wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:46 am
There is a massive debate over social justice and it’s authenticity. Whilst many rally to the cause, others believe it is cancerous. What are your opinions on this topic?

My opinion:
I myself am a classical liberal (you guys can look it up) and I honestly believe that SJWs are... VERY hypocritical. Down below, I will list their hypocrisies
  • Social Justice Warriors say that everyone is equal, BUT some immediately consider your argument invalid if you’re a cisgendered straight white male... the largest portion of Americans.
No, they don't; they suggest that as cisgendered white males, you and I might have unexamined internal biases that we need to examine. This is true of literally everyone, but because cisgendered white men generally grow up with less discrimination, our biases often leave us ignorant to the way others have to live or feel. Case and point: the recent flood of sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations, which triggered a flood of men suddenly realizing that, yeah, that was happening right under their nose, and they didn't notice it because they didn't want to.
I'm not talking about people retroactively saying "I should have known" when they had no way to. I'm talking about people saying they knew their boss was a rude, domineering, sexist jerk, and seeing things happen that should have tipped them off, and still not cluing in to it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 354eaff5d3
Also, am I the only one who finds it odd that they solely blame white men for slavery, but the African people sold them willingly.
No, they don't--at least, not the people who actually know what they're talking about in regards to history. For a huge chunk of history, though, the powers North of Africa (most notably Portugal and the various Islamic nations, from what I remember) went out of their way to disrupt any potential independent powers in Africa, in order to keep the incredibly lucrative--and, yes, exploitative--slave trade from drying up.
Regardless, though, what most people take issue with regarding the role of Europeans in slavery was more the horrific conditions under which they were transported across the world, and the level of dehumanization that was applied to them, especially in the Americas.
SJWs argue that females and minorities are treated unfairly. BUT minorities kill <8 times the amount of policemen as much as they kill minorities. Also, the fabled pay gap? There is a mountain load of evidence that proves that it’s just due to business choices.
Citation needed.
Many SJWs consider people who follow right wing ideaology to be racist and Nazis. Yet from what I have said above, they are more guilty of the things they fight. In fact, they’re being fascist for automatically disliking conservatives or white men. Also another fun fact: The Democratic Party is actually now right wing.
You're sure throwing around a lot of accusations for somebody who claims to dislike it when people do that.

Yes, the Democratic party is right wing. There's no field in the United States for a truly liberal party, at the moment. That doesn't mean the Republican party is somehow less right wing.

And again, you're making a blanket accusation without any evidence. Most so-called SJWs I know reserve accusations of nazihood for actual nazis. While many do call Drumpf supporters racist, I have a really difficult time believing that anyone who actually paid attention to Drumpf's campaign didn't recognize that he was racist. If somebody followed it, and supported him anyway, they helped an openly racist candidate into the White House. Motivation only matters so much.
So there you have it. My opinion on this whole shabang. I hope I don’t trigger people :\
You didn't trigger me, but man, you sure do seem triggered yourself.
Archon wrote:you are a lich, which is basically a nerd who sacrifices his humanity to read books

User avatar
UmbraSight
Global Mod
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:07 am
Location: Lost in the Snow
Contact:

Re: Social Justice and Freedom of Speech

Post by UmbraSight » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:06 pm

Toffolus wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:46 am
There is a massive debate over social justice and it’s authenticity. Whilst many rally to the cause, others believe it is cancerous. What are your opinions on this topic?
Societies aren't perfect, and forces of change are required to deal with these imperfections. Historically every movement for societal change have been met with opposition, which can be good or bad depending upon what people are attempting to change. In this instance I would posit that those groups which seek to maintain the status quo, or even worse those who seek to regress us back to an earlier stage are more cancerous than those who are looking to cure societal ails. That said, it is again dependent upon what someone is attempting to change, there is a great deal of difference between someone seeking, say, reparations for slavery when they were not directly affected by it, and for someone seeking to reform drug and incarceration laws which unfairly target certain demographics. But, this is why we have debate, as well as a govermenral framework we can use to institute change.

My opinion:
I myself am a classical liberal (you guys can look it up) and I honestly believe that SJWs are... VERY hypocritical.
So that we are on the same page, when I read anyone state that they are a "Classical Liberal" I assume they mean they are a modern Libertarian. A focus on personal responsibility and rights, with a smaller government so it doesn't trample on those rights. So we are on the same page, I believe in a large, and strong federal government with personal freedoms protected against goverment censure, the first and foremost being protected speech, press, and peaceful assembly.
Down below, I will list their hypocrisies
  • Social Justice Warriors say that everyone is equal, BUT some immediately consider your argument invalid if you’re a cisgendered straight white male... the largest portion of Americans.
To my knowledge, they are not discounting your opinion but rather asking that you listen to what minorities have to say about their experiences. It is understanding that your experience is more than likely different than someone of a different demographic. It is also understanding that because your experiences are different, then what holds true for you more than likely won't be true for them. This is not the same as saying your opinion is completely invalid, it is saying your experiences are not always relevant to every conversation or that your experiences might make it so that you might not understand how hard it is for someone in a different pair of shoes.

Also, am I the only one who finds it odd that they solely blame white men for slavery, but the African people sold them willingly.
I believe Snows covered this well enough.
SJWs argue that females and minorities are treated unfairly. BUT minorities kill <8 times the amount of policemen as much as they kill minorities.
Source please.

Now, let us also think about what might be the cause of this. Minorities tend to live within cities, cities tend to have massive disparity in wealth and education. The poor also need to eat. Crime for some becomes the solution. We can focus on the symptom, or we can focus on the disease, which is better for our long term health?
Also, the fabled pay gap? There is a mountain load of evidence that proves that it’s just due to business choices.
Again, source please.

We can also question why it is women tend to avoid STEM careers. There is also research done as to why there are some fields in STEM woman tend to avoid and others woman turn to. The culture and perception of the thing, and the culture surrounding the thing can be an influencing factor on who seeks to follow certain paths. If you don't feel accepted, is it any wonder you don't follow through?
Many SJWs consider people who follow right wing ideaology to be racist and Nazis.
If you hold up a Nazi flag, snap off the Roman salute while chanting "the Jew will not replace us" I'm sorry if people then think you are a Nazi.

Actually, no I'm not.

What you have given is a broad generalization, and it has no sourcing. People on both sides of every coin like to try to discredit their political rivals by pointing at some bad thing in history and going "just like that!" no matter if it applies or doesn't.

Accusations of racisim can be more interesting to parce out. Some of it can be based on personal ideology and how they precieve racesim. Let's say you voted for Trump because you (somehow) approved of his tax plan, and just turned a blind eye to all of his extremely racially charged language that used identity politics and racism as a rallying cry to a section of receptive Americans. Are you a racists?

Maybe not, but you are certainly condoning it.
Yet from what I have said above, they are more guilty of the things they fight.
I remain unconvinced.
In fact, they’re being fascist for automatically disliking conservatives or white men.
Stop. You were just complaining about people calling everyone they disagreed with a Nazi. You are doing the exact same thing. Learn what people are actually arguing about before you start calling them a fascist.
Also another fun fact: The Democratic Party is actually now right wing.[/list]
For starters, relevance?

You do understand that right left spectrums only work when you are comparing two things, yes? America is an extremely conservative nation which I posit is the cause of most of our issues, but that is a different conversation. In America, we still decry socialism as something bad, when a good portion of the modern world has already accepted it as a useful tool. (Not getting into the fact that we don't care about socialism when we use it to pay for our armed services, just when we use it as a socal net to catch people who are chewed up by the capitalist machine) So yes, if you compare the Democrats to a left wing European or Canadian political party, the Democrats will lean far more to the right. However when you compare the Democrats to its only major competition, the Republicans, they are clearly far more left wing.

America does not have a strong socialist party, the best we have are the Democrats who push for moderate socialist reforms and welfare nets. I have to work with the parties I have in my country.
So there you have it. My opinion on this whole shabang. I hope I don’t trigger people :\
There you go, my opinion on your opinion. Please spend more time actually looking into these issues and what people are actually taking about. Have a nice day!
//… and it was there, and her blade flicked out catching only air. She backed from the door, worn floorboards shivering with each misplaced step...// Fall of the Aelir Isles, Vol. III

User avatar
MayonnaiseSupreme
Newbie
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:53 am
Contact:

Re: Social Justice and Freedom of Speech

Post by MayonnaiseSupreme » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:32 pm

I can't say I am a political expert, but since this seems to be more of an opinion thread, I would like to express my opinion as well I hopes that we might come to a better understanding about why someone might disagree with a lot of positions the Social justice movement takes, or rather in my case, what their solutions are.

I will first begin with clarifying that I am not against liberal beliefs or views of how the world should be in its entirety. There is many topics where I am liberally inclined, such as healthcare, education, abortion and the LGBT* community (The * is there because I do have more conservative views within this community despite being a member.)

I will also mention that I am biracial -- My father was a brown man from the middle east, And if you take a look into the media lately, You can imagine the kind of scrutiny we are receiving.

That being said, despite being a member of some classic minority groups that would not have the best advantage from a sociological paradigm, and while I sympathize with a lot of the topics the left often brings up because they are indeed personally relevant to me, I have big disagreements with how they exercise their opinion and try to create change, And I do not support every area they defend. Some areas I am so opposes to, that I actively cannot vote for a liberal candidate if they decide to make leniencies in these areas because I feel the cost to my values and the society would want to live in are so high, they outweigh the other beneficial topics they might put forward. (Sex work being one of these topics I am fiercely conservative about).

I'd rather not get into a debate about why I am against certain sub categories, And thus I will attempt to stay on topic and bring up those issues in another thread if they become a topic.

My motto has always been that if you present an idea or a system, you should be able to reverse all groups it is regarding or completely omit the details of the group and the context. If the idea still seems morally acceptable, then it is a good idea to go forward with. If it only stands if it favors a specific group, then you cannot go forward with the idea.

A lot of SJW concepts seem to rely on morally justifying decisions that on themselves and stripped down to their bare skeleton would not sound morally acceptable. For example, affirmative action. I'd probably benefit from this, but I cannot support it, because if I strip down the details and look at it for what it is bare bones, it states that "Certain racial groups should be given access to more opportunity and financing than others."

Yes, I do understand it's purpose. I agree with that there is a serious issue that it is trying to address. But I cannot agree with the solution, because if I inserted "white people" as the racial group that gets more opportunity, it would be considered vehemently racist. Regardless of context, details or privilege, I cannot support any one racial group regardless of position in society getting more favor than another in any way, even if it would benefit me, And even if it's for a good cause. If it sounds bad for the majority group when reversed, then to me, it's a bad idea.

The way SJW groups conduct themselves in arguments also puts me at odds with them. My friends like to describe me at heart as a 40 year old classic liberal business man. Respect for me is everything, taking personal offense from opinions or positions is considered very bad tact, and putting labels of negative connotations on others based on their stance is considering polarizing and rude. My position on gender-fluidity and the amount of genders that exist in society doesn't make me transphobic, especially considering that id be more than happy to use "they" with a nonbinary person if it made them feel comfortable, or simply just use their name. My opinions on obesity doesn't make me fat-phobic. My defense of anything that might not be perfectly align with the SJW narrative doesn't mean I inherently hate or believe supporters are less than me, and when I am given a negative label for my values or my perspective on the human condition and life, I feel less inclined to support the person who is trying to supposedly "educate" me -- especially when they are claiming to represent me, a member of a minority group.

I don't appreciate labels being the only defense that a group has to a debate or argument, and I don't appreciate the demonization of the opposition. Never in history has polarization been positive for social change, and the while I may agree with many principals at heart that the Social Justice movement is trying to represent, as a group and as a lobbying force, I find myself opposed to them based on the honor of war on the battlefield of politics.

Now, if the movement focused less on identity groups and creating in-group out-group situations, which in my studies in social psychology, claim to be the number 1 cause of prejudice and discrimination, And instead focused on socio-economic status and the omitting of personal details with employment, education, healthcare and the likes, they would probably find that the groups they are trying to target would be included anyway with this method, and it would no longer rely on picking out people purely by race or gender.

If they also seized with the label-throwing and focused on debating conservatives strictly based on point and position and logic, they could find the inconsistencies that truly destroy the rights political positions and defeat them by proving themselves the intellectual superior, rather than the emotional victim. Right leaning people are already individualistic and care little about the emotions of others. Convincing them isn't going to happen by making yourself appear as exactly what they hate : A smooch who wants to take away their principals and make them pay higher taxes.

Then again, I am a Canadian. Politics up here happens a lot differently than politics down in America. Canadian Convservatives don't tend to go out of their way to pick on liberals because most of our liberal representatives are politicians who know how to debate. That's how we got our current PM, who argued on the basis of unison progress rather than the progress of any specific group.

Even more so, we have four (technically 5 but two of them are very small) official parties. Our liberals are centrist with economics, left with social issues. Our Conservatives are right with economic issues and centrist with social issues because they want to get elected again. The NDP sway from center to left on social issues but are left with economics, and the Green party is Left with both.

We are naturally a largely decided liberal nation to begin with, so up here, SJW stuff isn't as loud.

The topic of free speech is an easy one for me. Free Speech is important so long as you are not using it to bully or harass other people. Free Speech does not mean HATE speech. You can present any political position or concern in a non-hateful way, it just takes a few more braincells, and if you are deciding to speak for a group of people claiming to be right, You better do so with respect and tact.

I Sincerely apologize if I came across as ignorant to the point of irritation with any of my previous statements. I do not profess to have statistics on any issues, this is purely an opinion as to my critique of the Social justice stances, and a few of their details. Regardless of your position or what you support, I genuinely have no distaste for you personally, and I am sure that I would be able to find ways to sympathize with every issue you might bring up.

User avatar
Hilo Takenaka
Bronze
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Down Under^45e45745745745743523232312212357878890774532445657795654376457243543656867973456325
Contact:

Re: Social Justice and Freedom of Speech

Post by Hilo Takenaka » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:41 pm

Snowskeeper wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:55 pm
Toffolus wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:46 am
There is a massive debate over social justice and it’s authenticity. Whilst many rally to the cause, others believe it is cancerous. What are your opinions on this topic?

My opinion:
I myself am a classical liberal (you guys can look it up) and I honestly believe that SJWs are... VERY hypocritical. Down below, I will list their hypocrisies
  • Social Justice Warriors say that everyone is equal, BUT some immediately consider your argument invalid if you’re a cisgendered straight white male... the largest portion of Americans.
No, they don't; they suggest that as cisgendered white males, you and I might have unexamined internal biases that we need to examine. This is true of literally everyone, but because cisgendered white men generally grow up with less discrimination, our biases often leave us ignorant to the way others have to live or feel. Case and point: the recent flood of sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations, which triggered a flood of men suddenly realizing that, yeah, that was happening right under their nose, and they didn't notice it because they didn't want to.
I'm not talking about people retroactively saying "I should have known" when they had no way to. I'm talking about people saying they knew their boss was a rude, domineering, sexist jerk, and seeing things happen that should have tipped them off, and still not cluing in to it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 354eaff5d3
Also, am I the only one who finds it odd that they solely blame white men for slavery, but the African people sold them willingly.
No, they don't--at least, not the people who actually know what they're talking about in regards to history. For a huge chunk of history, though, the powers North of Africa (most notably Portugal and the various Islamic nations, from what I remember) went out of their way to disrupt any potential independent powers in Africa, in order to keep the incredibly lucrative--and, yes, exploitative--slave trade from drying up.
Regardless, though, what most people take issue with regarding the role of Europeans in slavery was more the horrific conditions under which they were transported across the world, and the level of dehumanization that was applied to them, especially in the Americas.
SJWs argue that females and minorities are treated unfairly. BUT minorities kill <8 times the amount of policemen as much as they kill minorities. Also, the fabled pay gap? There is a mountain load of evidence that proves that it’s just due to business choices.
Citation needed.
Many SJWs consider people who follow right wing ideaology to be racist and Nazis. Yet from what I have said above, they are more guilty of the things they fight. In fact, they’re being fascist for automatically disliking conservatives or white men. Also another fun fact: The Democratic Party is actually now right wing.
You're sure throwing around a lot of accusations for somebody who claims to dislike it when people do that.

Yes, the Democratic party is right wing. There's no field in the United States for a truly liberal party, at the moment. That doesn't mean the Republican party is somehow less right wing.

And again, you're making a blanket accusation without any evidence. Most so-called SJWs I know reserve accusations of nazihood for actual nazis. While many do call Drumpf supporters racist, I have a really difficult time believing that anyone who actually paid attention to Drumpf's campaign didn't recognize that he was racist. If somebody followed it, and supported him anyway, they helped an openly racist candidate into the White House. Motivation only matters so much.
So there you have it. My opinion on this whole shabang. I hope I don’t trigger people :\
You didn't trigger me, but man, you sure do seem triggered yourself.
First of all, I haven’t triggered myself, don’t worry about that. :P
I’m going to give a detailed response, considering I didn’t go into detail before

1. On the topic of my first statement: I never said ALL SJWs disregard opinions of those who are CSWM, but SOME do. There are many times where a conservative speaker has been attacked or bullied by SJWs and Femininsts because they don’t like Antifa or BLM. As for the statement of men being unaware of sexist bosses, many female bosses abuse male employees. It’s not an one-way street, and whilst the issue is horrible, I don’t think it will be resolved by looking at half of the picture

2. Slave trade topic: I absolutely hate slavery as well. It’s completely awful. But the African people sold them willingly because the Europeans sold weapons, tobacco and other materials that were incredibly precious to the African people. As for the claim on Islamic slave trade, one notorious group were the Barbary Pirates, who had a slave trade of predominantly English and Irish. Not saying that other groups enslaved the natives, but it did happen.

3. I admit I was wrong with the “<8” statistic( I meant more than, and I was tired),I forgot what the actual number was whilst writing this, but it’s still quite high. If you want to read it, here are the citations:
https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/rober ... esentation
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... out-racism
And here is the pay gap one: https://youtu.be/58arQIr882w

4. When I said they were more Nazi-like, I meant a lot of them believe they have a higher authority over people because their opinion is more PC, i’m sorry I didn’t clarify that (I was quite tired lol) as for people supporting a racist into parliament, the other option was supporting someone who has potentially murdered a politician (Vince Foster). Trump’s motivation is to make America great again, not to support racism.

And there you go, that’s my official response. I hope this doesn’t escalate into a petty squabble, that would be awful.
Image

Snowskeeper
Member
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:46 pm
Gender: Eldritch Abomination
Contact:

Re: Social Justice and Freedom of Speech

Post by Snowskeeper » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:24 pm

Toffolus wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:41 pm
First of all, I haven’t triggered myself, don’t worry about that. :P
I’m going to give a detailed response, considering I didn’t go into detail before

1. On the topic of my first statement: I never said ALL SJWs disregard opinions of those who are CSWM, but SOME do. There are many times where a conservative speaker has been attacked or bullied by SJWs and Femininsts because they don’t like Antifa or BLM.
You refer to social justice warriors as a monolith throughout the entirety of your post. I agree that some people are jackasses, but that's not really a point against modern liberalism; that's a point against people.
As for the statement of men being unaware of sexist bosses, many female bosses abuse male employees. It’s not an one-way street, and whilst the issue is horrible, I don’t think it will be resolved by looking at half of the picture
The issues are not equal, and even if they were, it wouldn't be a counterpoint. The point was that people possess internal biases that stop them from seeing the issues right in front of them.
2. Slave trade topic: I absolutely hate slavery as well. It’s completely awful. But the African people sold them willingly because the Europeans sold weapons, tobacco and other materials that were incredibly precious to the African people. As for the claim on Islamic slave trade, one notorious group were the Barbary Pirates, who had a slave trade of predominantly English and Irish. Not saying that other groups enslaved the natives, but it did happen.
They were incredibly precious because, again, the northern powers did everything in their power to keep them from establishing an independent industrial base, so that they would remain reliant on them. You've also failed to respond to the second part of my statement on this. I'm aware that European people were also enslaved, although given the English were convinced the Irish were also inferior human beings who were better off in service to the supposedly superior Anglo-Saxon race, that's not the best defence of your position you could have used.
3. I admit I was wrong with the “more than eight” statistic, I forgot what the actual number was whilst writing this, but it’s still quite high. If you want to read it, here are the citations:
https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/rober ... esentation
This slideshow says fewer police officers were killed by black men. Average of 120 per year for black males, and 56 per year for police officers. Note that that is the number of police officers killed in the line of duty per year, not the number killed by black males per year. It also isn't the number killed "by minorities," as you claimed. Black people are not the only minority in America, but even if we only count them, more are killed by police officers than there are police officers who die in the line of duty.
Further, it relies on data that has been criticized heavily for relying too heavily on volunteer reporting. How many people do you think failed to report police homicides because they were scared of what might happen to them if they did?
It also fails to consider societal circumstances; it presents "black people are 50% more likely to participate in violent crime" in a complete void, without any context whatsoever. That is, in my view, irresponsible at best. At the very least, it plays into the idea that black people are somehow naturally more violent.
This piece does nothing but quote statistics and then get angry about how the Washington Post isn't focusing on what it considers more important factors.
And here is the pay gap one: https://youtu.be/58arQIr882w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0szhu0tL7n0
4. When I said they were more Nazi-like, I meant a lot of them believe they have a higher authority over people because their opinion is more PC,
Drumpf just won the election. Any claim that being PC somehow gives you more authority is completely ridiculous for as long as he's in office.
as for people supporting a racist into parliament, the other option was supporting someone who has potentially murdered a politician (Vince Foster).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence for this claim. It has been repeatedly debunked. Please don't bring up ridiculous nonsense like this unless you've got convincing evidence to support it.
Trump motivation is to make America great again, not to support racism.
Then why does he keep lying, backtracking, and making promises that he should know are outright impossible? Like, one of the coal barons who supported him most closely throughout his race outright-said there's no way Drumpf could possibly do more for the coal industry than put it on life support, but that didn't stop Drumpf from claiming he'd be completely resurrecting it.
And there you go, that’s my official response. I hope this doesn’t escalate into a petty squabble, that would be awful.
It'll only degenerate into a petty squabble if you take it there.
Archon wrote:you are a lich, which is basically a nerd who sacrifices his humanity to read books

User avatar
Annasiel
Administrator
Posts: 3872
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:40 am
Gender: Female
Location: Somewhere grey and full of ghosts.
Contact:

Re: Social Justice and Freedom of Speech

Post by Annasiel » Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:46 am

MayonnaiseSupreme wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:32 pm
I can't say I am a political expert, but since this seems to be more of an opinion thread, I would like to express my opinion as well I hopes that we might come to a better understanding about why someone might disagree with a lot of positions the Social justice movement takes, or rather in my case, what their solutions are.

I will first begin with clarifying that I am not against liberal beliefs or views of how the world should be in its entirety. There is many topics where I am liberally inclined, such as healthcare, education, abortion and the LGBT* community (The * is there because I do have more conservative views within this community despite being a member.)

I will also mention that I am biracial -- My father was a brown man from the middle east, And if you take a look into the media lately, You can imagine the kind of scrutiny we are receiving.

That being said, despite being a member of some classic minority groups that would not have the best advantage from a sociological paradigm, and while I sympathize with a lot of the topics the left often brings up because they are indeed personally relevant to me, I have big disagreements with how they exercise their opinion and try to create change, And I do not support every area they defend. Some areas I am so opposes to, that I actively cannot vote for a liberal candidate if they decide to make leniencies in these areas because I feel the cost to my values and the society would want to live in are so high, they outweigh the other beneficial topics they might put forward. (Sex work being one of these topics I am fiercely conservative about).

I'd rather not get into a debate about why I am against certain sub categories, And thus I will attempt to stay on topic and bring up those issues in another thread if they become a topic.

My motto has always been that if you present an idea or a system, you should be able to reverse all groups it is regarding or completely omit the details of the group and the context. If the idea still seems morally acceptable, then it is a good idea to go forward with. If it only stands if it favors a specific group, then you cannot go forward with the idea.

A lot of SJW concepts seem to rely on morally justifying decisions that on themselves and stripped down to their bare skeleton would not sound morally acceptable. For example, affirmative action. I'd probably benefit from this, but I cannot support it, because if I strip down the details and look at it for what it is bare bones, it states that "Certain racial groups should be given access to more opportunity and financing than others."

Yes, I do understand it's purpose. I agree with that there is a serious issue that it is trying to address. But I cannot agree with the solution, because if I inserted "white people" as the racial group that gets more opportunity, it would be considered vehemently racist. Regardless of context, details or privilege, I cannot support any one racial group regardless of position in society getting more favor than another in any way, even if it would benefit me, And even if it's for a good cause. If it sounds bad for the majority group when reversed, then to me, it's a bad idea.

The way SJW groups conduct themselves in arguments also puts me at odds with them. My friends like to describe me at heart as a 40 year old classic liberal business man. Respect for me is everything, taking personal offense from opinions or positions is considered very bad tact, and putting labels of negative connotations on others based on their stance is considering polarizing and rude. My position on gender-fluidity and the amount of genders that exist in society doesn't make me transphobic, especially considering that id be more than happy to use "they" with a nonbinary person if it made them feel comfortable, or simply just use their name. My opinions on obesity doesn't make me fat-phobic. My defense of anything that might not be perfectly align with the SJW narrative doesn't mean I inherently hate or believe supporters are less than me, and when I am given a negative label for my values or my perspective on the human condition and life, I feel less inclined to support the person who is trying to supposedly "educate" me -- especially when they are claiming to represent me, a member of a minority group.

I don't appreciate labels being the only defense that a group has to a debate or argument, and I don't appreciate the demonization of the opposition. Never in history has polarization been positive for social change, and the while I may agree with many principals at heart that the Social Justice movement is trying to represent, as a group and as a lobbying force, I find myself opposed to them based on the honor of war on the battlefield of politics.

Now, if the movement focused less on identity groups and creating in-group out-group situations, which in my studies in social psychology, claim to be the number 1 cause of prejudice and discrimination, And instead focused on socio-economic status and the omitting of personal details with employment, education, healthcare and the likes, they would probably find that the groups they are trying to target would be included anyway with this method, and it would no longer rely on picking out people purely by race or gender.

If they also seized with the label-throwing and focused on debating conservatives strictly based on point and position and logic, they could find the inconsistencies that truly destroy the rights political positions and defeat them by proving themselves the intellectual superior, rather than the emotional victim. Right leaning people are already individualistic and care little about the emotions of others. Convincing them isn't going to happen by making yourself appear as exactly what they hate : A smooch who wants to take away their principals and make them pay higher taxes.

Then again, I am a Canadian. Politics up here happens a lot differently than politics down in America. Canadian Convservatives don't tend to go out of their way to pick on liberals because most of our liberal representatives are politicians who know how to debate. That's how we got our current PM, who argued on the basis of unison progress rather than the progress of any specific group.

Even more so, we have four (technically 5 but two of them are very small) official parties. Our liberals are centrist with economics, left with social issues. Our Conservatives are right with economic issues and centrist with social issues because they want to get elected again. The NDP sway from center to left on social issues but are left with economics, and the Green party is Left with both.

We are naturally a largely decided liberal nation to begin with, so up here, SJW stuff isn't as loud.

The topic of free speech is an easy one for me. Free Speech is important so long as you are not using it to bully or harass other people. Free Speech does not mean HATE speech. You can present any political position or concern in a non-hateful way, it just takes a few more braincells, and if you are deciding to speak for a group of people claiming to be right, You better do so with respect and tact.

I Sincerely apologize if I came across as ignorant to the point of irritation with any of my previous statements. I do not profess to have statistics on any issues, this is purely an opinion as to my critique of the Social justice stances, and a few of their details. Regardless of your position or what you support, I genuinely have no distaste for you personally, and I am sure that I would be able to find ways to sympathize with every issue you might bring up.
I was gonna post something long and complicated, but this. This is my stance.

Though, I might personally be more liberal than you in terms of LGBT+. But considering that's irrelevant to the matter at hand... yeah.
Image "I see things that no one else seems to see..." Image

User avatar
Austin
Member
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Social Justice and Freedom of Speech

Post by Austin » Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:28 am

Social justice? Stupid. Freedom of speech? Includes hate speech and should be protected with our last ounce of blood.
For the kingdom of God awaits me, for I am saved by the blood of christ

Snowskeeper
Member
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:46 pm
Gender: Eldritch Abomination
Contact:

Re: Social Justice and Freedom of Speech

Post by Snowskeeper » Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:42 am

Austin wrote:
Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:28 am
Social justice? Stupid. Freedom of speech? Includes hate speech and should be protected with our last ounce of blood.
What, only the last ounce?
Archon wrote:you are a lich, which is basically a nerd who sacrifices his humanity to read books

User avatar
bastecklein
Site Admin
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:42 pm
Location: Spring Hill, KS
Contact:

Re: Social Justice and Freedom of Speech

Post by bastecklein » Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:40 am

I agree with the OP about “SJW” hypocrisy, but there is also hypocrisy on the “free speech” side. SJW’s have as much of a right to think all straight white guys are Nazis and there are 40 different genders as everybody else has to roll their eyes at them. If you are really for free speech, then the SJW is the embodiment of free speech taken to its absurd conclusion. If someone wants to mope around all day feeling like a victim or go to a rally wearing a vagina on their head, then that is their right.

The hard liners on both sides keep fighting but fail to embrace the one thing they have in common: everybody else is making fun of them.
Owner of Role Playing Forums and Ape Apps

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests