0
86

[–] nomenimion 0 points 86 points (+86|-0) ago 

She's right.

14
-6

4
72

[–] Quawonk 4 points 72 points (+76|-4) ago 

Try telling blacks that they have no right to write about whites. Women don't have the right to write about men.

Yeah. Double standards out the ass. What else is new?

0
64

[–] BrainEnema 0 points 64 points (+64|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I'm sure that the vast majority of Voat's user base can agree. We fled the website that shall remain anonymous (WESHRA? WETSRA? let me know if you find a suitable acronym) to flee this sort of thing.

I don't like /v/fatpeoplehate. I think it is mean-spirited and cruel. But I would never advocate that it outside forces should prevent it from existing. I wouldn't start petitions to have it removed. I wouldn't doxx its moderators. I wouldn't start mass, organised boycotts, publicly shaming anyone who visited it. I wouldn't threaten Voat with financial ruin if they didn't remove it. I just don't visit it.

If you think you believe in free speech just because you're not calling for the government to censor someone, you don't believe in free speech. If you try to prevent movies from being released because you think they're insensitive, sick, or glorify violence, you don't believe in free speech.

I could go on to explain the difference between fantasy and reality, but honestly it has been explained a million times by people far more articulate than I.

I read an article recently explaining this phenomenon somewhat more indirectly. The tl;dr version is that young people (like me) view their subjective offense as an accusation against someone else, rather than an expression of their state of mind. Because well-intentioned people have entertained this anxiety as an accusation, it has festered , and bred a culture of increasingly fragile people, whose mental health is slowly deteriorating because their every anxiety is entertained as a topic of discussion to be taken seriously as social commentary, rather than what it actually is: whining.

I'm a university student. I've seen more than one person get crucified for suggesting that another person should not be offended at something. The analogy is always the same. It's something like "Wouldn't you treat a Klansman with contempt? Make them a social pariah? Yes? Then shut the fuck up."

My answer is actually "No". I wouldn't. I would think that person is a fucking idiot, but I wouldn't write articles in a newspaper or magazine or on social media "calling them out" for being a racist. I wouldn't obsess over exacting my revenge, disguised as justice, on another human being. I wouldn't tell all his friends to have him socially ostracized. I'd say "That guy's a douche" move on with my life. When one views speech or thought as an act of aggression (see "microaggression"), then it makes perfect sense why such a person would pursue some notion of justice. When one equates verbal and physical assault (as the professional umbrage-takers do), banning things like "For Such a Time" makes perfect sense.

But of course, speech (fictional or otherwise) isn't an aggression. It's absurd to claim someone needs to be "held accountable" for their words or thoughts, but not so for their actions. But this is the culture we live in, and it terrifies me.

So please, to everyone reading this, fight these people, and don't be like them. And if you are one of the people who wants this book ban, please remember:

The world is under no obligation to conform to your sensibilities.
Some people are assholes. Deal with it.

(rant over)

EDITed for grammar. Because I suck at grammar.

0
17

[–] cynoclast [S] 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

I don't like /v/fatpeoplehate. I think it is mean-spirited and cruel. But I would never advocate that it outside forces should prevent it from existing. I wouldn't start petitions to have it removed. I wouldn't doxx its moderators. I wouldn't start mass, organised boycotts, publicly shaming anyone who visited it.

Agreed. All they needed was a block button like voat has.

I read an article recently explaining this phenomenon somewhat more indirectly. The tl;dr version is that young people (like me) view their subjective offense as an accusation against someone else, rather than an expression of their state of mind. Because well-intentioned people have entertained this anxiety as an accusation, it has festered , and bred a culture of increasingly fragile people, whose mental health is slowly deteriorating because their every anxiety is entertained as a topic of discussion to be taken seriously as social commentary, rather than what it actually is: whining.

I like the term nagging. That's all they do. They don't build constructive alternatives. They don't build, create, or produce anything. They nag, nag, nag until someone else "fixes" it for them.

0
5

[–] voatforgoat 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

One of the best summaries of the current situations I've read, thanks. Hope more people can begin to appreciate this.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] BrainEnema 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

How is this relevant to anything I said?

0
1

[–] kevdude 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You nailed it dude.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 51 points (+53|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

0
18

[–] mukt 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

Saved your comment - till someone hits the delete button. :-(

0
2

[–] mutus 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Saved your comment - in case they delete you :-(

0
12

[–] go1dfish 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

[–] [deleted] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] DeliciousApples 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Sadly, these guys will probably be relevant forever.

0
3

[–] Diogenes_The_Cynic 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Kindle did this a few years back when they remotely deleted everyones copies of 1984.

Yes, 1984.

0
1

[–] Stoeicijn 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

source. for the interested who are lazy.

0
0

[–] TexasComments 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of The Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs – to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct, nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place.

0
37

[–] miistahmojo 0 points 37 points (+37|-0) ago 

Political correctness = Political censorship

0
22

[–] lord_nougat 0 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago 

I think it's even worse than that; it's the latest face of fascism.

1
6

[–] nomenimion 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

I think the real fascism will come about as a reaction to political correctness. When American crowns its first dictator, it'll be someone on the right, not the left.

1
2

[–] Tsugumori 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

I've started to think of this as an amusing contradiction. The politically correct crowd are expressing their own views by censoring others. In effect limiting the speech of others is a form of speech itself. That implies that in order to protect free speech, truly, we have to protect free censorship.

0
1

[–] Uncle_Tractor 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Political correctness = toeing the party line. It's not a left or right thing; it's authoritarianism.

4
10

[–] Imapopulistnow 4 points 10 points (+14|-4) ago 

So, when will millennials connect the dots and see that the same errors in liberal progressive thinking that apply to sexual assault charges and language censorship claims, may apply to their economic and governance theories as well.

1
12

[–] etere 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

What does liberal economic and governance theories have to do with political correctness and free speech?

[–] [deleted] 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

4
4

[–] Crashmarik 4 points 4 points (+8|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Liberal Economics = Crony Capitalism

Or "It's not what you know but who you know" made the supreme law of the land

3
3

[–] mukt 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

Buy or read online Orwell's 1984.

0
2

[–] Imapopulistnow 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

When emotion and feeling override logic, reasoning.

0
9

[–] cynoclast [S] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I'm a social liberal/but libertarian rather than authoritarian. Not everyone who is left leaning agrees with these SJW cunts.

0
15

[–] julian 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago  (edited ago)

People don't seem to get that issues are a la carte. You can pick and choose, using your own mind and judgement, what to believe. You don't have to accept the entire pre-packaged bullshit meal served up by the main two parties.

I'm a liberal, and an anti-feminist egalitarian. I support capitalism, except in industries where natural monopolies create perverse incentives to maximize human misery for profit (health care, education, prisons, et al). I'm an atheist, but against abortion (though think it should stay legal for the first couple months). I own several guns. I'm an environmentalist concerned about global warming, but I also back nuclear power.

No political party aligns with all of those positions.

0
1

[–] kevdude 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Classic Liberals would say "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it."

edited "Real" to "Classic"

0
6

[–] flyawayhigh 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Conservative economics was discredited before it took hold. Once it took hold, it was discredited again, many times.

Conservative economics is quite simply not economics. It is a hypothesis of governance. Thus, the begrudging condoning in the economics profession of things like the "efficient market hypothesis" and "normative economics."

If anything, conservative economics leads to many of the very stresses that create the over-reactions of "SJWs." If some minority is being called names, oh well. But if the person is being called names and deprived of life's needs, then it becomes serious.

That's the real connection. :)

0
1

[–] RewriteFullwise 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

A free-ish market economy, with some amount of regulation, has brought more prosperity, to more people, in a shorter amount of time than anything else in human history. In our day to day lives, it can be easy to overlook just how far we've come, and take it for granted. Stop for a second and really contemplate just how different our world is from what it was 200 years ago. Ask yourself what system motivated people to work so hard, and risk so much to make all of that? The profit/success system is an incredible motivator and allocator of resources. I'm not saying everything is perfect, I'm just saying that for the most part, a free market system works wonders*.

Is there an alternative system that has brought a greater amount, and can sustain it? I've yet to see one.

*There is little/no market incentive to maintain the environment, and as such, this has historically been the realm of governments. I also acknowledge and applaud private groups that buy land for public preservation as well via non-profits.

0
0

[–] Imapopulistnow 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Can not even think of acway to reply to this.

0
7

[–] theoldguy 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

So SJW's don't have the right to write about people with common sense? Is that how it works?

0
1

[–] nomenimion 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Certainly they have that right.

0
3

[–] theoldguy 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

But according to their own incorrect reasoning they don't. Or am I misunderstanding OP?

0
6

[–] lordtyp0 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

"Some argue that white novelists have no right to write about people of color"

With that in mind-does that mean they now believe that the Witcher 3 NOT including non Slavic style people to be a good thing? Or, is it still bad? How is it possible for an author to have diversity in any work if writing about other demographics is vorboten. Is the only "Acceptable" means for this 'diversity' to have collective fiction? Have a woman write the women character, racial demographic X writing characters of X... How long until that morphs and just "Don't by anything by a white person"?

I think the big problem with SJWs is they all do their damnedest to be seen as a civil rights leader for image-that they out crazy the last person to get attention. But they are all expected to include what every other whacko says as some law of society.

load more comments ▼ (20 remaining)