I don't think there is a "source". It's just a recognition of what road we are headed down. It's a combination of superior intelligence and courage.

It would be much, much easier to just stay silent and side with you, to join the mob mentality. I can't do that because I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

It's not a conspiracy, dude. We all didnt read the same piece of propoganda and decided to join some fringe movement.

What do you think of the SJW crusade to get the words f*g and f****t removed from everyday use? I'm assuming somewhere between 2010 and 2017 we again reached this magical line where people are doing so much that it's harmful paralleled to the racial topic in the Trump thread.

E I can imagine a documentary in the future narrated by Morgan Freeman looking back at this decisive point in American history. It goes something like this,

"These were difficult times for America. Trump was elected president. Some celebrated. Some wept. Most feared. Day by day, civil liberties taken away. The constitution...trampled on. Refugees...turned away. Non violent immigrants...deported. Protesters arrested. The media....silenced.

Above it all, a select few saw through the fog. Make no mistake. These men were of supreme intellect. Courage unrivaled. There was this great movement...to call white supremacist and those that aided them racist. Nazi's were being punched in the face at a rate of almost 1 per month. You couldn't even say,"you're black. You must be good friends with the black caucus" without being accused of prejudice. I paint a dark picture...let me assure you...it was much much worse.

America needed a hero...that man was wil."

Keep fighting the good fight brother.

Even weirder, the fronts and groups claiming their speech is oppressed have huge media networks and copious amounts of already produced free expressions under their belt. They are observably free to run their mouths to their own supreme doom.

There's no single source. There's been a sizeable industry riling up the OSJers since c1990. It's astroturf propaganda. An example is RWNJ talk radio. Half the content was stories of bravado about talking down to and showing up the libruls.

I'm convinced that, while perhaps as much from uboobz as radio now-a-days, these complaints are for your rank-n-file OSJers both (a) learned & regurgitated, but not thought through, and (b) imagine themselves always in an IRL face-to-face discussion.

I legit shed a tear. Morgan Freeman voice would be so badass too.

In all seriousness, I have a question. Should he say wil, or wil318466?

willy. you referred to yourself that way, recently, and that's how i see you all the time.

and i legit like willy. not saying he's flawless. but i enjoy many of his posts/fights and believe i would like him in person.

so, answer is "willy wins".

One good thing about Lordjvk's appearance here is that it tipped me off to the right-wing movement to exonerate Daniel Holtzclaw, the OKC cop convicted of sexually assaulting and/or raping 8 black women over a stretch of years. This cause seems to be spreading as I recently saw a Stephen Molyneux video on the subject. A change.org petition calling for Holtzclaw's pardon has about 3,500 signatures.

When my current project wraps up next week I was thinking of writing an article about this. It's half-sickening, half-fascinating.

Willy the Great from philly? Or is it phillie? one "L"?

Wil?

You ****ing one-bridge-having piece of **** city

So be it.

(Morgan Freeman voice)

So, here we are in the new post-MILO world. Where does our OSJer sophistry stand now?

• If the Libruls have their shiz together, they should be able to put a serious dent in this general propaganda line that there's a war going on between "PC Police" -vs- "Free Speech". Every time the OSJers start in with that "free speech" shiz, they gotta have their noses rubbed in a reminder of this pederasty advocacy.
  
  
• The term "SJW" doesn't really take a hit here, despite the weakness of the term. Unlike "PC Police" which is a strong propagandic term (it's always been a pejorative in US usage, and nobody likes the ominous words "correct" and "political" connected up), "SJW" is a weak propagandic term (standing alone, "Social Justice" is never going to be a pejorative, and the SJW term forces the OSJers into a awkward two-step... as they gotta say they're the real backers of SJ, while the SJWers are the real opponents to SJ).

Well it has started to seep into society and impact on peoples freedoms on a few different levels. Sometimes it seems very innocuous but I believe it is a slippery slope.

A very small one seemingly innocuous one is the list of micro aggression's that some university's have tried to stop people saying. I think it was the university of Missouri that produced a list that included things like asking where someone was from.

Now you could be white as a sheet and on the first day of Uni ill ask where you are from........ its called breaking the ice. Now that seems pretty harmless but im not a fan of trying to police peoples language to the extent where you having to watch what you say and cant ask people simple questions.

On a larger scale it would be the impact that PC culture has had on free speech. Im a massive advocate of free speech and nothing good has ever come from trying to stifle it. There has not been a single oppressive regime ever that has allowed free speech.

Ideas that where once offensive to people are now taken for granted in every day life. And they only reason we have them today is because we allowed speech that offended people.

Free speech is how as a society we come to a consensus and move forward as one. Of course the downside to this is that we will get some horrific ideas and speech but the pros massively out weigh the cons.

The first example I can think of PC culture stopping stopping someones freedom to speak out was the Rotherham sex ring scandal in which some members of an Asian community were grooming underage girls into a sex ring. In some cases they achieved this by getting the girls hooked on heroin so the girls were dependent on them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-28939089

Children as young as 11 were raped by multiple men abducted and trafficed to other cities in the UK. At least 1400 children were involved between 1997 and 2013.

Reports into the case found that the scandal went on a lot longer than it should have as the problem was downplayed and some of the staff were nervous about identifying the origins of the perpetrators because they were being scared of labeled racist.

So to answer your question a policeman in South Yorkshire might have said I cant or am too scared to properly report on a child sex ring because of PC culture.

There are countless examples of PC culture stiffing free speech which I believe is detrimental to our society. I think we have to find the sweet spot , we are alot more progressive than we were 20-50 years ago and that is a good thing in many ways. But we are in danger of becoming too progressive to the point where it is becoming regressive.

Now PC culture is so bad if we were at certain Uni's together I wouldnt even be supposed to ask you where you where from. It would be deemed too "aggressive"

Its possible to be against both left wing and right wing authoritarianism as I am. They are not mutually exclusive.

The bill being passed is an infringement on freedom and should be condemned. I really dont care if you are left or right wing if you are shutting down free speech you are the enemy.

I don't see how that's an answer to the question. Also, lol, where is it you think that's the case?

As for the Rotherham thing, I wish people would stop acting like they believe the police's excuses. The treatment victims received from the authority was exactly in line with what victims have been saying for decades about the failure to take charges of rape and molestation seriously. It falls exactly in line with the failure to crack down on the Catholic Church, even now, when we know that they have intentionally relocated members of the clergy to protect them from justice, and still won't release their info on who and where. It fits exactly in line with the accusations against the Anglican Church in recent times, where we've still seen little in the way of real investigation. It fits exactly in line with the attempts to undermine the parliamentary inquiry into historic child abuse cases. It fits exactly in line with what we hear from Operation Yewtree.

Failing to protect vulnerable women and children is something of a pattern, the only difference with Rotherham and similar cases was that the police found an easy spin to excuse it. And somehow there are people willing to lap that **** up.

I thought we were discussing PC culture and the effects on free speech sometimes I reply on this thread and forget about it for a couple of weeks. I realize that reply was from a while ago it might have been someone else I was discussing it with.

It is happening at the the university of Missouri and a couple of other university's in the US but as always these practices will spread.

As for expressing yourself at work , yes you are responsible for what you say and should be held accountable but I dont think people should be fired for expressing political views. A Canadian professor was fired for being pro life at a Canadian school . He was teaching a law class and made a point about how the law conflicted with his own morality, he was reported and sacked. PC culture is costing people their livilihoods and its not like these people are clansman or Neo Nazis.

If you had told me a couple of years ago I would be sticking up for conservatives right to free speech due to liberals becoming authoritarian I would have laughed in your face.

As for the report into the police being an easy spin to excuse it. The report absolutely crucified them and rightfully so. They came out of it looking weak and pathetic. Also remember listening to an interview with the family of the victims explaining how they were treated by the police and I have no doubt the abusers were given different treatment due to their background. The police were far more cautious than they should have been. People are really afraid of being called racist of sexist these days and its no wonder.


You misspeak slightly and your crucified and might lose your job.

I do take on board your point about the catholic church ect and not enough being done to protect women and children , it is a worrying pattern , after listening to the victims and their families I do believe that the background of the abusers resulted in too cautious an approach. I will try find you the interview im talking about.

Wil for mod!

These things always get diluted so quickly.

The question you responded to was essentially when were you ever free to say whatever you wanted at your place of work? And the answer we seem to agree on is, never. There have always been codes for proper conduct and speech whether written or unwritten. So this whole shock that you can't say certain things at work is an affectation. What we're really doing is quibbling about the details of what you think is and is not suitable for whatever environment.

As for my last question, you've picked Missouri as an example. So can I get a citation on not being allowed to ask where someone is from at that uni? Because my best guess is that what people have termed a "microaggression" is distinct from what you're implying.

I don't know the story of the Canadian professor, so again I'm going to need some details, because that doesn't sound right that the only thing he did was reference the fact he's pro-life.

Again, the Rotherham thing, this idea that the police only acted that way out of fear of being labelled racist kind of flies in the face of it being exactly the same actions we've seen across the board when race is removed as a factor. Race wasn't a factor for Savile, but funnily enough everybody who should've known better buried their heads in the sand for fear of getting involved in something that big and messy. Race isn't a factor for the Catholic Church, but those guys still haven't stopped protecting paedophiles. So don't buy into this idea that this obvious excuse has any credibility. People did what they always do and ignored something they really didn't want to have to deal with.

I think I got the university wrong but here is some of the list from North Carolina

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/06...no-4-category/


And another list from Minnesota

http://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf

And im not really sure what the punishment is for using these are but it is the general effect of trying to police peoples language and always assume the worst in what people are trying to say. I mean your going to start seeing racism/sexism everywhere if you are going by these lists. I dont think this is a healthy way in which to push a society. A few generations ago we needed PC culture but it has started to go too far. I mean some of the stuff is really innocuous and other stuff I can see where they are coming from but dont think the authoritarian approach is the one to take.

The link of the Canadian teacher losing his job.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bc...d-so-he-ends-u.

The difference is with Saville he was a lone wolf so to speak. The disturbing thing with the Rotherham scandal was that it was a network all operating in the same city within the same community.

Obviously you get white gangs who traffic sex slaves but these are criminal gangs, those caught up in this scandal were ordinary family men not career criminals. Which makes it quite a unique case.

Race wasnt a factor for the catholic priests but their religion was, im from a city where being called a pedophile is a common slur used against Catholics.

Was watching the big questions on bbc where they spoke about the problem of Pakistani sex gangs in the UK a guy who had done a report found that Pakistanis gangs were over represented in the grooming of young girls and women. He also said that older single white men were over represented when it came to being lone wolf pedophiles will try find a link. He got shouted down pretty quick if I remember correctly.

Well, you should probably find this out before you get all worried about it. My guess is that there is no punishment and these are suggestions of how speech might come across and what potential ignorance you're showing.

By way of anecdotal example, I ran a stand at a Fresher's Fair for our uni's poker society. We had a not particularly famous UK poker pro who came to help us out and talk to people, share some free merchandise with sign ups, a guy in his 70's who I'll not name. A friend of mine, who happens to be black, and very attractive, comes over to talk to me briefly. When she's gone, old guy who'll remain nameless says "She's a looker, where's she from?" and I say I think she's from London, and he says "Not that, where's she actually from?". I happen to know that her grandparents still live in Nigeria, but she's from England. So let's say he'd asked her this to her face, the implication, intentional or not, is that she's not really English like I am. She's Nigerian, really. And let's say she gets asked this a lot, which I happen to know she has been. Do you see how that could be really grating on someone who identifies primarily as English or British, someone born and raised here?

Best as I can ever tell, that's all these "microaggressions" are about. Those seemingly insignificant remarks, generally genuine and said without any intention of offence (old guy is a lovely bloke, even if some of his attitudes are a bit like what you'd expect for someone his age), that add up to be at least a little bit annoying or aggravating to the recipient. And that being aware of that kind of thing means that maybe you'll sound a bit less of a tit to those people and make them feel a little more respected or accepted. Does any of that really sound bad?

As for the Canadian teacher, my reaction is that the link you've given me is to a religious pro-life site, who are talking about an anonymous case of a teacher being fired for merely daring to voice that he was pro-life. Does that article pass the smell test for you? Doesn't do anything for me.

And sure, maybe religion was a factor in the Catholic Church, but has anyone suggested we haven't cracked down on them because of political correctness?

As for Operation Yewtree, it's more than just one lone wolf. Max Clifford, Rolf Harris, Dave Lee Travis, and new evidence against our old favourite Gary Glitter, they all went down, and they all have victims in the wake telling the same stories about how people suspected or knew what was going on and nobody did anything. So again, don't buy into the BS that the Rotherham case is special. Only the excuse is different.

Citation on the bold? All I can find are right leaning websites linking to a story in a right wing Canadian newspaper that doesn't even attempt to contact the school for comment and claims that their source is an anonymous teacher.

From the lifesite link above.

"But the teacher won’t identify the school other than to characterize it as effusively onside regarding the LGBT agenda, subjecting teachers to “gender training” by the QMUNITY advocacy group, which the teacher remembers instructing them that “no one is 100 percent male or female (though the teacher was evidently male enough to disqualify his opinion on abortion.)”

So it's an anonymous teacher talking about being fired from an anonymous school he won't identify.

I am totally sure that actually happened

I don't doubt something like that might happen at some private schools. For instance lots of Christian private schools require a code of beliefs and ethics from their teachers.

What I'm saying is that there is zero evidence this particular event happened, and it's being used as an argument that free speech rights are being stifled, which is ridiculous.