I don't know about law. I do know about moral values.

http://www.moralfoundations.org

It is strongly upsetting my natural sense of liberty, a core value. Most people share this value.

The accuser is using a controlling mechanism to suppress ideas from being entertained. This is oppression by any definition.

The problem is that they use a controlling mechanism that almost any innocent bystander de facto has to agree with.

No one likes racism. No one wants to be seen as racist.

This is why the mechanism works.

They can skew the debate then into the person having to defend against that accusation and not talk about whatever they wanted to talk about.

This gets tricky and frustrating.

For example, I genuinely think Angela Merkel's policy on the refugees was a very bad one.

I genuinely think social integration is a good thing and that true multiculturalism leads to divided communities that do not trust each other.

It is difficult to talk about these things without that alarm looming.

I say this as a highly educated chap who also knows how to be careful and circumspect when it matters.

But your old factory worker might have similar ideas but not be as well read or articulate. And there the alarm looms even more greatly because he might say the "wrong" thing in trying to make the same point.

And you see where this goes.

Not just this issue. Any issue.

For example, I oppose transgender toilets on pure utilitarian grounds. Try making the point without the accusation being thrown that you are also against transgender rights in general.

In practice, SJWs make real talk almost impossible. Because everything swings around to their core values of ... well calling people bigots whenever they can.

Pretty much what Tom Nichols said over a year ago, but nobody here ever responds when I post it.

And they seem to think this was just parody:

Accurate video.

Lordjvk is absolutely 100% spot on with his assessment. Every person disagreeing with him in this thread has no idea what they are talking about because they are blind to it. It is not a coincidence that all the people disagreeing with him, to a person, has been on the wrong side of everything when it came to the election.

We live in a dangerous time when reasonable, sensible people are blind to what is going on. Sjws are the most dangerous people I've ever seen, and that includes the neocons and the tea party.

The entire mentality needs to end. I believe it will shortly, as the Western world is voting against them (thank God). Underestimating the hatred for sjws, in light of election results in liberal democracies across the planet shows how deep of a problem this really is. Literally the evidence is right in front of you and you can't see it.

SJWs are the very reason we have a President Trump right now.

While they are not the sole reason of course, the SJW reign of terror of the last few years was a very critical tipping point.

As it turns out aggressively screaming at and demonizing anyone who doesn't 100% adopt and reinforce your world view at all times is a poor persuasion technique.

SJWs are some of the most angry, hateful, and bigoted souls you'll ever meet.

The more Trump pissed these people off, the more people were ready to embrace him.

The SJW fight for social justice is akin to Don Quixote's fight with the windmills.

Just because someone fancies themselves a noble, brave warrior doesn't make it so. In fact you may just be a delusional fool.

They got what they deserved. The left overreached and the ones who spoke out against it were silenced by the sjws. They cannibalize their own.

I mean, Ben Affleck went out of his way to call Bill Maher and Sam Harris racist for their position on Islam. Meanwhile, afflecks ancestors were slave owners, and be wanted that edited out. Lol.

I view free speech in classic liberal thought as referring to the relation between government and private or public speech by citizens. Speech is free if the government doesn't use its legal power to prevent citizens from making it and prevents other people from preventing other citizens from making it. In my opinion shaming someone for saying something doesn't prevent them from saying it. Thus, it is not an issue of free speech. Would you disagree with this?

Stick to the subject please. Not opinions about posters


We're avoiding examples from 2+2 because of the inevitable derail. Request things from the rest of the world please.

You see why nearly every deplorable made a response since, but none have tried to refute this. Wonder why. Jesus chezlaw, what horrible moderation. You have multiple posters in multiple threads saying SJW in here stifle discussion and shout people down. The second we ask for a single citation it's "off topic?" Jfc

It is not surprising that lord, mondo and everyone else thinks their free speech is in danger any time anyone on a poker forum disagrees with them.

aoFrantic,

I have received numerous temp bans from MrWookie and other threats for full banning for fairly innocuous posts, with a lot of them stemming from me defending myself against baseless accusations. No rational adult would conclude that they were not incredibly biased actions in order to silence my views, and I am sure I am not alone on that.

If you do not consider that effective silencing of dissenting opinions, I do not know what to tell you.

Because it's a silly ass question? You're asking us to prove a negative. We cannot show you a post of *silence* We can, however, point at the bubble of P, like 90% left and a mod who does not consider directly smearing posters with labels like racist, sexist, bigot etc., to be personal attacks, thereby allowing such personal attackers to flout the rule against it, then banning posters who respond in turn with, you guessed it, personal attacks. Same with trolling.

Maybe you missed why this forum is necessary, and why there's a lot more diversity of opinion here?

You can ask for examples from the real world. There's nothing that special about examples from here except they will lead to a derail.

You may not like the rules about derails, if so take it to moderation thread please.

Foldn and Dan, the reason they can't ask for examples 2+2 is to avoid responses like that. We're not going to turn this thread into the same old discussion about the forums on 2+2.

Yeah fine not same old discussion, aoFrantic was just hammering for an answer it seemed so I gave him my take. Carry on my wayward sons

Define SJW.

Someone whose world view is almost completely dominated by identity politics and the concept of some sort of victimhood or oppression hierarchy. Almost every single issue for them, no matter what it is, somehow always ultimately boils down to some sort of -ism or -phobia.

They see these -ism's and -phobia's everywhere and in everything. They can detect these things the same way a numerologist can detect mystical patterns. Somehow, they are always there.

There's no such thing as honest disagreement to these people. Their belief system is the one true gospel, and therefore any disagreement is heretical.

"Virtue signaling" is VERY important to these people. In fact, I would contend it's their strongest characteristic. It's not enough to simply hold these beliefs, it's very important to advertise how strongly you hold these beliefs to the rest of the tribe.

Outrage is the SJW currency. You show how good of a devotee you are by how outraged you are. The more outraged an "injustice" makes you, the more righteous you are. As such it's important to find things to be outraged about, at all times, and advertise very loudly just how outraged you are and you can't fathom that others aren't quite as outraged as you.

If this sounds a lot like a crazy religious cult, it kind of is. Organized religion has historically been mankind's SJW crew. The need to find a witch to burn, to force confessions of 'sins' out of people, to advertise how righteous you are compared to the 'unrighteous' people, etc.

^ he nailed it.

No, he wants the right to his catharsis by mocking your myopic worldviews.

The big hint came when he typed exactly that.

Also note I didn't call him A Racist because the r-word is a no-no word.

My views are not myopic. The only people who are short sighted are the ones who cannot see exactly what Cotton Hill just posted.

Sit download, read and learn.

If you will not do that, you will suffer Trump forever.

i'm a grunching master you better ask somebody

Also again, I was trying to get clarification whether my wallet was a confirmed n****r-lover or merely just liked n****rs a whole bunch.

This is an offensive post and I do not understand why you have made it.

I really don't want actually racist language in the thread.

Do you understand that people who are against SJWs are not pro racism and racist language?

Stop with this.

5ive is a racist. He always has been.

Let's face it, it boils down to the fact that SJWs want to talk about racism. They don't really care about other issues. That's the one they want to talk about. And if it isn't there, they have to find a way to make it so that that's what is under the microscope.

One track minded.