social justice in colleges explained

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I guess you never heard of hate speech? That's an infringement on free speech that can land you in jail. Guess you're gonna ignore that one though, because you guys don't like true free speech if it infringes on your delicate emotional sensibilities. And to think that you accuse me of wanting to censure free speech when I'm simply pointing out the totalitarian tendencies of modern liberals.

Ignore it? Why should I even acknowledge it? It doesn't exist in the states. You can only go to jail for hate speech in Europe. The Supreme Court has defended racists' and bigots' right to spew hate speech time and time again. Here's an example of one case in fact:
Snyder v. Phelps

Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that speech on a public sidewalk, about a public issue, cannot be liable for a tort of emotional distress, even if the speech is found to be "outrageous".

We have gone too far because Western civilisation has become a rotting carcass. It is riddled with cancers and flesh eating demons.

Because of this misguided and self-righteous tendency of the West we have let muslims and their apologists run wild. And it is doubtful that our culture can survive this collission, Islam was made to conquer.. westerners have been suckled by their governments, we've been indoctrinated to be weak and worthless. In 20 years we'll be mired in civil wars and running street battles as muslim enclaves declare sovereignty and the state deploys military force to rein them in.

Oh NO! Not MUSLIMS! What is the world coming to when someone has the right to practice the religion he or she wants? Oh wait, that is something that has always been the case in this country, your Islamaphobic paragraph here notwithstanding.

This tolerance will doom us all and liberals are to blame.. in the future revolutionary wars it will be open season on muslim collaborators. 90% of the military are conservatives, I predict not many liberals will survive the later unity wars.. the human aliens play favorites too. I'm down with the green ones so you can hardly accuse me of being a racist.

I think you need to take a break from ATS for a while. You've traveled a little too deeply down the rabbit hole... This literally makes zero sense and looks like paranoid, crazy talk.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Oh man, that guy, and his cast are absolutely bang-on. I just finished watching 3 of his vids, and I'm ready for more.

Too funny, and frighteningly accurate, watching that was like reading some threads on ATS.

Sorry, couldn't help myself......

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Nothing wrong with fighting for social justice is there? In principle? At its root?

It is wrong if social justice is the desired end, but social injustice is the means to that end. That is the methodology at work in "social justice warriors", and, as is evidenced in this very thread, by those who support them.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Are you trying to tell me two wrongs don't make a right like that is a brand new concept to my mind?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Are you trying to tell me two wrongs don't make a right like that is a brand new concept to my mind?

You put a question mark behind your statement, and I attempted to provide an answer.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Yeah, "social justice" sounds good.

But then, "Patriot Act" sounded better than "Screw your Constitutional rights." ...

In today's highly politicized environment, words don't always mean what we think they mean.

Yes. That was precisely my point. "Social Justice" sounds like something one would want, just like your examples. That's why I asked the OP, "What exactly is "Social Justice" to you?". I assumed he or she had a different meaning from the obvious, and I was asking what it was.

Seeing the phrase being thrown around as an insult didn't make sense to me. So, I' was trying to find out WHY it was being used as an insult. In fact, I asked my husband about it at lunch and he didn't know about it either. I guess even the right is getting tired of using the term "politically correct" and "social justice" is their next incarnation. Because doesn't it mean virtually the same thing?

I started to watch the video, but it was SO hyperbolic, that I didn't think I'd get any facts there.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

BH, I've been aware of the term "social justice" for a while from following the PC movement. If you go to other forums, terms like social justice warrior (or SJW) are actually pretty common.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bluntone22

I don't have any problem with Social Justice. What's wrong with exercising your First Amendment right? Are you just upset that people are saying things you don't like?

Yet the social justice warriors say the 1st amendment makes them feel "unsafe".

a reply to: TheBulk

They do? I've never seen anyone say that before and I'm a proud SJW. Please don't create strawmans about us. The only people who drag the first amendment into a political correctness argument are non-PC people complaining that their first amendment rights are being violated. Heck, YOU are a non-pc person dragging the first amendment into the thread with this strawman post here.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Social Justice is not the problem. No one has ever said anything against social justice. No, it is not used as an insult.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're a rational person. Would you argue the ends justify the means for social justice? For instance in the case of Nobel Laureate Sir Timothy Hunt?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'd argue that there is nothing that could be done to help that guy. There are and have always been consequences for your actions. Just because the consequences aren't legal in nature doesn't mean that you shouldn't be aware of them.

I'm only concerned about legal consequences for your words. As long as the government isn't arresting or fining people for what they say, I could care less what happens to someone for opening their mouth and saying something stupid or intolerant. It is what it is. That's how things work.

The only solution to stop something like that from happening is to infringe on a SJW's right to free speech so as to protect someone else's right to say something intolerant, and that is not something I agree with. In FACT, that would be a very example of the ends justifying the means to people. What you suggested there isn't the ends justifying the means. It is just public backlash for saying something stupid.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is great. I wish Europe was staunch enough to uphold real freedom of speech.

No, the end is coming when millions of muslims wanting to change our way of life invades our continent without our express consent. When the media obfuscates and covers up the crimes of immigrants so they can continue with their traitorous and criminal immigration policies. Their politics are based on a foundation of lies and propaganda and are thus void. They lack the proper heavenly mandate to rule and they have not gone through the right channels. They've usurped the crown for too long these enemies of humanity.

Yes, 50 million muslims in Europe.. a 100 million in a generation or two. You must be comfortable with those rose coloured glasses if you think that situation will end up bad.

Islamophobic? Ok.. well, you're logicphobic.. how's that? Pretty bad I agree, but islamophobic is almost as bad and in the end it's only an ad hominem attack.

It makes sense, I assure you. You've been lied to and you believe in the fairytales of your masters. This is why you still persist in this outdated quaint belief of yours, thinking we're alone on this planet. You couldn't be more wrong. And yes, they do play favorites. Some of the negative groups probably want to purge a majority of this planet..

If anything this site is too exoteric, too many people don't know about the djinn and all the invisibles..

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Is that your definition of "equal". Do you mean "exactly the same"? Because when talking about social equality, people usually mean "equal treatment under the law or rules of an organization".

I beg to differ.

Social justice is about enforcing equal outcomes for all through the law, not about equal treatment before the law.

Let's use Parcheesi as an example.

Parcheesi is a board game in which each player has a set of four tokens that have to be advanced to a point on the board called "home." Players take turns rolling dice and advancing tokens until someone wins by getting all four of their tokens "home" first. One player wins, and that's the object of the game.

It works because all players follow the same rules and roll the and interpret the dice in the same way.

Equal treatment before the law. It is just.

For social justice Parcheesi, it would be unfair for one player to win and all others to lose, so the SJWs would seek to change the rules as the game is played seeking to disadvantage the players who were ahead and advantage the most disadvantaged players to lift them up. The object would be to have all players finish at the same time so that no one wins and no one loses - equal outcomes for all.

The reality is that this approach never works because you almost always create unintended consequences for some and unintended benefits for others, hurting and helping more than you meant to.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is great. I wish Europe was staunch enough to uphold real freedom of speech.

Take it up with your politicians.

No, the end is coming when millions of muslims wanting to change our way of life invades our continent without our express consent. When the media obfuscates and covers up the crimes of immigrants so they can continue with their traitorous and criminal immigration policies. Their politics are based on a foundation of lies and propaganda and are thus void. They lack the proper heavenly mandate to rule and they have not gone through the right channels. They've usurped the crown for too long these enemies of humanity.

*Yaaaaaawn...* Uh huh... I've heard all this fear rhetoric before.

Yes, 50 million muslims in Europe.. a 100 million in a generation or two. You must be comfortable with those rose coloured glasses if you think that situation will end up bad.

Sure let's go with that.

Islamophobic? Ok.. well, you're logicphobic.. how's that? Pretty bad I agree, but islamophobic is almost as bad and in the end it's only an ad hominem attack.

You're the one lying about the Muslim religion, not me. I happen to know quite a few Muslims (I even work for some of them) and not a single one has threatened to injure me for being atheist. Heck none have even tried to convert me (can't say the same about some of the Christian people I know though...)

It makes sense, I assure you. You've been lied to and you believe in the fairytales of your masters. This is why you still persist in this outdated quaint belief of yours, thinking we're alone on this planet. You couldn't be more wrong. And yes, they do play favorites. Some of the negative groups probably want to purge a majority of this planet..

Uh huh...

If anything this site is too exoteric, too many people don't know about the djinn and all the invisibles..

Well Stormfront is that way. Something tells me you'll fit right in over there.

a reply to: ketsuko


Exactly!
Social justice is a punishment for people that are perceived privileged.

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I never heard it until they felt they needed to censor entertainment. (video games)

And 99% of the time they aren't truly seeking justice.

Whatever happened to voting with our dollars?

Voting with your dollars doesn't work as a concept. There's only so many things to spend money on. Lets say you want a shooter video game and the makers of Halo offend you, you're going to buy one of EA's games instead and support them despite EA also being a horrible company. Maybe you don't like the farming practices of Hillshire Farms, there's only a limited number of other people to buy meat from. And, few people actually take action even when they're upset. A truly offensive company will see a boycott of maybe 10% of their customers, why should they care about that? They'll just scale production back 10% and it's business as usual.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Parcheesi is a board game in which each player has a set of four tokens that have to be advanced to a point on the board called "home." Players take turns rolling dice and advancing tokens until someone wins by getting all four of their tokens "home" first. One player wins, and that's the object of the game.

It works because all players follow the same rules and roll the and interpret the dice in the same way.

Equal treatment before the law. It is just.

No, it's more like giving some players 3 tokens, some 4, some 5, and some 6 based on various factors like socioeconomic status, race, sexuality, or other factors but saying it's equal treatment because everyone is following the same rules of advancing all their pieces.

a reply to: Aazadan

Nope those are SJW rules again.

a reply to: Aazadan


Your probably right.
Blacks and woman couldn't possibly be smart enough to get into college without the help of evil white men. Let's lower the standards!
But I would think they would be tired of hearing that by now.