So What Exactly is Wrong with "Social Justice"?

[Pazzy]

Actually have an issue with that because I notice that a good number of people the past 5 years due to social media are just following whatever is the trend in terms of outrage or whatever without knowing what anything that they are being outraged on or what they are representing. Outrage junkies. A close examination of them and you'll see that they contradict themselves or actually are cosigning what they are against without knowing it. They are doing it to look good or to appear to care when in reality they want those likes or to be validated. That's why I always look at the self proclaimed activists like okay are you really about what you're saying or just doing this to look good on social media or trying to be famous. The black lives matter, occupy wall street, dapl, flint, resistence movement, and etc only just exposed who really was about that life in terms of helping people or in many cases, someone fueling their ego or narcissism, look at me. These folks get real quiet when whatever outrage is no longer trending. I respect all those that are really out there living that shyt or checking themselves on their bs.

I've seen too many of these folks on social media running around claiming that they are helping people when they aren't doing shyt but basically begging for attention or to be in the limelight. It's very angering especially seeing other people cosign their nonsense. Hell, one time I actually saw one SWJ around last year with a go fund me dedicated to themselves asking people to send them money so they can be a social justice warrior. Having some megalomaniac shyt like they were going to save the planet and even had the nerve to show their face, only 23 years old. No joke. It's clear that that person was only asking for a handout laying out their living expenses with no plan on doing shyt but protesting across America to whatever issue had gone viral. When I saw that, I was like this shyt is way too common. All these narcissists and frauds using serious issues as their stepping stone or for the wrong reasons really making things worse especially for those that actually are the foot soldiers or people who may want to help and actually want to fix social problems. Terrible.

 

[kwazzy100]

THE FU¢KING IRONY

Freedom of speech is you're allowed to give an opinion without the government chopping your head off. Should a company/group of people tolerate you no matter how controversial your opinion is?

 

[kwazzy100]

i don't see how it's indicituve of larger crisis facing the female collective.

Women being raped isn't a crisis to you?

 

[kwazzy100]

• People love to argue and they love to talk even thought they know nothing about the topic they are arguing about (And it's entertained)

• People love to speak for groups of people that they aren't apart of , and even if there they are a part of the groups, most of the time we can refer to bullet #1

• they love to cast stones, but refused to take accountability for their behavior.

• Lastly, people can't take criticism. You can't grow as a person.group if you don't know your flaws.

All this can be said about the Alt-Right

 

[Maschine_Man]

Women being raped isn't a crisis to you?

It absolutely is, but that doesn't mean we live Ina rape culture. That rc message that these new age feminists are pushing is insane, and a complete lie. Especially when they stay real quiet when it comes to countries and groups that have a actual real rape culture.

All this can be said about the Alt-Right

Yup, the mindset is the problem. In each extreme they act very similar. The labelling is different but the behavior is the same.

Neither extreme is open to real discourse and they only wish to stand on their soapboxes and lambast anything that goes against their own views.

 

[Maschine_Man]

Freedom of speech is you're allowed to give an opinion without the government chopping your head off. Should a company/group of people tolerate you no matter how controversial your opinion is?

And this is what the anti-free speech movement doesn't understand.

Ppl aren't allowed to say what they want and expect to have no consequences. Freedom of speech allows people to say freely whatever is on their mind, however say racist and bigoted or hate speech doesn't mean that you get to keep your job, or pay a fine, or even get punched in the face.

Freedom of speech doesn't allow someone to infringe on someone else's rights

Anti free speech clowns are ignorant as fukk

 

[BocaRear]

And this is what the anti-free speech movement doesn't understand.

Ppl aren't allowed to say what they want and expect to have no consequences. Freedom of speech allows people to say freely whatever is on their mind, however say racist and bigoted or hate speech doesn't mean that you get to keep your job, or pay a fine, or even get punched in the face.

Freedom of speech doesn't allow someone to infringe on someone else's rights

Anti free speech clowns are ignorant as fukk

Are Nazis entitled to free speech?
Are Terrorists entitled to free speech?
Does Free Speech encompass inciting violence if you're running for political office?
By this logic, a radical Islamist preacher could run for office and if he garnered enough support, well that's just free speech isn't it? The Free Market place of ideas made its decision.

 

[Maschine_Man]

Are Nazis entitled to free speech? YES
Are Terrorists entitled to free speech? YES
Does Free Speech encompass inciting violence if you're running for political office? NO

By this logic, a radical Islamist preacher could run for office and if he garnered enough support, well that's just free speech isn't it? The Free Market place of ideas made its decision.

can you REALLY be any more obtuse?? seriously?

what did I just say?

Freedom of speech doesn't allow anyone to infringe on anyone else's rights, it doesn't allow them to practice hate speech, and it doesn't mean they are free from consequences.

in all of your lame examples there would definitely be consequences for their words and actions.

If the nazi was preaching hate they would be shut down and they should be.

If a terrorist was preaching hate they should be shut down as well. however if a terrorist is a terroirst they would be arrested for actual terrorism so I don't really care for this example.

If the Radical Imam was spreading hatred and bigotry he should also be shut down.

WHY is that so hard for you to understand??

 

[BocaRear]

Freedom of speech doesn't allow anyone to infringe on anyone else's rights, it doesn't allow them to practice hate speech, and it doesn't mean they are free from consequences.

in all of your lame examples there would definitely be consequences for their words and actions.

You're confused. I don't think you know the meaning of the words you're using.
Freedom of Speech encompasses hate speech otherwise it wouldn't be called Freedom of Speech, inciting hatred and violence is protected under Free Speech. That's why groups like the ACLU defend the rights of the KKK.

Which is why Freedom of Speech is retarded. In Weimar Germany, Free Speech was embraced whole-heartedly and it was Europe's most progressive nation in the early 20th century. As a result of its liberalism the Nazis could openly spread hate speech. This assumption that in this free market place of ideas, good rational ideas will be more readily accepted than hateful ones is simply wrong.

If the nazi was preaching hate they would be shut down and they should be.
If a terrorist was preaching hate they should be shut down as well. however if a terrorist is a terroirst they would be arrested for actual terrorism so I don't really care for this example.

If the Radical Imam was spreading hatred and bigotry he should also be shut down.

WHY is that so hard for you to understand??

Who would shut these groups down? the government? Then you realise you're not arguing for Free Speech right?

 

[Maschine_Man]

You're confused. I don't think you know the meaning of the words you're using.
Freedom of Speech encompasses hate speech otherwise it wouldn't be called Freedom of Speech, inciting hatred and violence is protected under Free Speech. That's why groups like the ACLU defend the rights of the KKK.

Which is why Freedom of Speech is retarded. In Weimar Germany, Free Speech was embraced whole-heartedly and it was Europe's most progressive nation in the early 20th century. As a result of its liberalism the Nazis could openly spread hate speech. This assumption that in this free market place of ideas, good rational ideas will be more readily accepted than hateful ones is simply wrong.



Who would shut these groups down? the government? Then you realise you're not arguing for Free Speech right?

you really are this fukking dense right?

tell me then why do ppl get sued for slander?
why do ppl get sued for libel?

why do ppl get sued for their speech and the words they say if all speech was free?


MALDEF: Does the First Amendment Protect all Speech?

"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution generally prohibits government regulation of speech, even when the speaker’s opinions are reprehensible to the general public. The First Amendment does not, however, protect all speech. It does not, for example, protect speech that leads to illegal activity and/or imminent violence, obscenity, defamation, and libel.

The First Amendment also does not protect speakers from liability for the foreseeable consequences of their speech. In cases where speakers encourage their audience to commit certain illegal or inherently dangerous acts, liability may rest with speakers and the forums that they use.

For example, in 1975, in Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. 539 P.2d 36, the Supreme Court of California held that a radio station was legally liable for holding a broadcast contest that inspired listeners to drive recklessly. Two listeners, in their pursuit of a radio station vehicle that held a reward, negligently forced a car off the road, killing the driver. The Supreme Court of California affirmed a jury’s verdict that the radio station was liable for negligence for the “foreseeable results of a broadcast which created an undue risk of harm . . . .” Weirum, 539 P.2d at 43-45.

When a statement that creates a foreseeable risk of harm is broadcasted, therefore, the First Amendment does not protect the speakers and broadcasters from the consequences of their speech. Speakers and broadcasters who incite violence against immigrants and/or Latinos, for example, may be legally required to make injured parties whole through financial or other means"

 

[BocaRear]

you really are this fukking dense right?

tell me then why do ppl get sued for slander?
why do ppl get sued for libel?

why do ppl get sued for their speech and the words they say if all speech was free?


MALDEF: Does the First Amendment Protect all Speech?

"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution generally prohibits government regulation of speech, even when the speaker’s opinions are reprehensible to the general public. The First Amendment does not, however, protect all speech. It does not, for example, protect speech that leads to illegal activity and/or imminent violence, obscenity, defamation, and libel.

The First Amendment also does not protect speakers from liability for the foreseeable consequences of their speech. In cases where speakers encourage their audience to commit certain illegal or inherently dangerous acts, liability may rest with speakers and the forums that they use.

For example, in 1975, in Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. 539 P.2d 36, the Supreme Court of California held that a radio station was legally liable for holding a broadcast contest that inspired listeners to drive recklessly. Two listeners, in their pursuit of a radio station vehicle that held a reward, negligently forced a car off the road, killing the driver. The Supreme Court of California affirmed a jury’s verdict that the radio station was liable for negligence for the “foreseeable results of a broadcast which created an undue risk of harm . . . .” Weirum, 539 P.2d at 43-45.

When a statement that creates a foreseeable risk of harm is broadcasted, therefore, the First Amendment does not protect the speakers and broadcasters from the consequences of their speech. Speakers and broadcasters who incite violence against immigrants and/or Latinos, for example, may be legally required to make injured parties whole through financial or other means"

Okay so you went from being an advocate of Free Speech to saying that hate speech and incitement doesn't constitute as Free Speech? And then you say that people who are Anti-Free Speech are ignorant?

You haven't made any argument in favour of 'free speech' and instead linked a website that offers a narrow perspective on what constitutes as Free Speech.

You realise that the Constitution and First Amendment are interpreted by the Supreme Court?

In the case of Brandenburg v Ohio the KKK incited hatred against blacks and jews yet the SCOTUS came to the verdict that:

(1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action"

This is a vague term that can be manipulated and didn't appear to apply to the KKK rally despite reports of incitement of violence against blacks and jews at the rally.

This is why the anti-hate speech laws of Europe are far better in protecting the individual liberties of its citizens rather than in the USA, in the UK you can't pull that shyt over here. Radical Imams can't discriminate or incite hatred, yet they can in the USA.

From the ACLU's own website:

"At the same time, it's a longstanding constitutional principle that unpopular, inflammatory, offensive, vicious, and even hateful speech is protected by the First Amendment. In particular, speech that is political in nature is protected because the First Amendment was designed to "allow free trade in ideas -- even ideas that the overwhelming majority of people might find distasteful or discomforting . . . ." State v. Krijger, 97 A.3d 946, 956 (Conn. 2014) (quoting Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003)). Expressive activities such as door-to-door leafletting are also unquestionably protected by the First Amendment.

All speech is protected by the First Amendment, except in narrow and well-defined circumstances. For example, "true threats" do not receive First Amendment protection, and we do not want them to. They cause fear and disrupt people's lives. But to fall under this exception, the threat must be intentionally and knowingly communicated to the target of the threat."

 

[Pazzy]

It absolutely is, but that doesn't mean we live Ina rape culture. That rc message that these new age feminists are pushing is insane, and a complete lie. Especially when they stay real quiet when it comes to countries and groups that have a actual real rape culture.

Yup, the mindset is the problem. In each extreme they act very similar. The labelling is different but the behavior is the same.

Neither extreme is open to real discourse and they only wish to stand on their soapboxes and lambast anything that goes against their own views.

Thank you for saying that. Crazy how this rape culture myth is still alive and kicking even after the stats and even the biggest anti rape advocacy group says that rape culture is bullshyt.

 

[Kenny West]

So many idiots trying to tiptoe around their misogyny and anti-LGBTQ feelings. Just own your bigotry instead of trying to intellectualize it and come up with wild conspiracy theories about how women and gay people run society and are plotting its destruction

coward post. nikkas talking about tiptoeing & owning shyt but don't name names.


Anyway, in the spirit of SJW intellectual discourse you supporting things against Christian values is just you tiptoeing around your latent homosexuality trying to mask it under the guise of justice instead of owning it.


If you disagree you're a bigot.

 

[JahFocus CS]

coward post. nikkas talking about owning shyt but don't name names


"agree with me or you are a bigot mysognist." -fakkit

If the shoe fits, wear it motherfukker.

 

[fact]

I think the biggest problem that folks have with SJW is that they are projecting their own insecurities or are afraid that their kids will end up being different. A lot of folks let people take up real estate in their head. I'm a moderately tolerant person, I see so many of these causes nowadays that I think are probably over the top, and I ignore them, live and let live, because they are not rooted in hate. A lot of these alt right people are just plain miserable and hateful, and don't have any tolerance for anything that they do nor perceive as "traditional" I do not go out and march for, or apply activism towards a lot of these topics that I think are over the top, but going out and trolling or publicly trying to be confrontational about it is some real bullsh1t. Raise your kids the way you want to raise them, and if they end up being influenced by some gay sh1t on tv, or some other sh1t, than you are not parenting correctly, your kid has mental problems that you you probably get them support for, or your kid really is gay/trans/whatever. The thing is, most of these folks that are out here being bully's or fighting off these sjw's are fukking cowards and try to prey on people they perceive as weak. I look at and listen to people like Paul Joseph Watson Milo, Richard Spenser, ultimate fukking cowards, go out and try to incite outrage, hate, bullying, and then if confronted by people, they cower and start that "tolerant left" rhetoric. They call for civil war, they call for people to take arms to "defend" themselves, they call for violence by projecting made up stories or twisting statistics to support their narrative, while their main objective is to confuse and weaponize insecure, depressed, poor white millennials like fukking chicken hawks. Their worst nightmare is middle class, tolerant, educated, happy, white males that will defend themselves and not buy into their narrative that there is no such thing as white priveledge, police brutality, sexism, xenophobia. I was listening to Alex Jones podcast yesterday, and he was actually saluting the folks that will not be named here and /pol. These folks are known racists, hardcore, racists, that no credible news source would commend, so I guess they are actually removing the subtlety and declaring themselves a racist organization, no more hiding it, which is good, it's what we have known all along.