Free Speech Through the Eyes of a Social Justice Warrior

Modern liberals hold themselves to be the defenders of civil liberties, freedom of expression, speech, etc. You can see them constantly in the streets exercising that freedom. Marching and protesting and rioting to defend their freedom from whatever boogeyman wants to take it away from them today. But are they really for free speech and expression? I submit to you that to today’s left, or the social justice movement, free speech is the most dangerous idea possible.

To understand the danger of free speech to a social justice warrior(SJW), you have to understand where they are coming from. These people are piggybacking off the free speech movement of the anti-war 1960’s. This movement started at the University of California, Berkeley, where students marched against the war and for civil rights. Today, students at Berkeley are rioting and protesting to prevent people they don’t like speaking at their school. Yet they still fancy themselves champions of free speech. How is this possible? In the book 1984, by George Orwell, this was called doublethink. This means holding and believing two opposing beliefs at the same time. Like championing free speech while trying to suppress free speech.

Only an sjw can really know the answer for sure, but if I had to guess I would say that they use the same thought process for speech that they do for human classification. It’s a thought process based in cultural Marxism where there is believed to be a hierarchy of privilege and oppression. Those at the top of the hierarchy are privileged and those at the bottom are oppressed. This is also an example of doublethink. Where you advocate for equality by oppressing those above you on the hierarchy ladder. Equality by oppression. This allows an sjw to be racist, bigoted and homophobic while at the same time claiming to help these same people. As long as the person you hate is above you on the ladder, it’s ok. For context, I’ll give you examples. Sjw’s generally agree that white people are at the top of the ladder, so it’s ok to be racist against them, to hate them, to cheer their destruction. It’s not racist at all you see, because you can only be racist to those more oppressed than you are. Doublethink. As we’ve seen by recent Islamic attacks against gay people, sjw’s put gay people higher on the ladder than brown people, so you can’t blame Muslims for killing gays, that’s oppressive. It’s ok for Muslims to be homophobic, since most Muslims are brown. It is not ok for Christians to be homophobic, because most Christians are white. Doublethink.

So let’s apply this logic to speech. How does someone justify advocating and suppressing speech at the same time? To a regular person there is just speech. Sometimes you don’t like what another person has to say. Sometimes speech is deeply offensive. Sometimes speech can be mean spirited, or crude, or funny, or uplifting. It’s all just speech. A social justice warrior classifies speech in a similar way that they classify people. There is free speech, or speech they approve of. There is hate speech, or speech they do not approve of. Hate speech, therefore, is outside the bounds of free speech. An sjw will use the hierarchy ladder to classify speech as either free or hateful based on who is speaking and about what. If a person who holds a certain place on the ladder is speaking negatively about something that might affect a person lower on the ladder, that is hate speech. A white man speaking about the dangers of illegal immigration for instance, is hate speech. A thin woman speaking about the dangers of women being overweight would also qualify as hate speech because thin women have more privilege than fat women. This is why comedians are protested, conservative speakers are protested, and anyone who does not subscribe to social justice is protested. Every time they hear a person with differing views it reaffirms to the sjw that there is oppression in the world that needs to be fought against.

If you wonder why these people are so angry all the time, why they need safe spaces, why they get triggered, just imagine how life must be for them. Literally, and I mean literally, everything they see, touch or encounter is sexist, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, or some sort of “ism”, that they must fight against. This is because they live in a capitalist country. To them, the entire system is set up specifically to oppress everyone who is not a white male. They live in the twilight zone, an alternate reality than the rest of us. They live in a place where boogeymen are everywhere and you can’t get away from them. I would want a safe space too. In my opinion, it a borderline mental disorder. To think that a young person can get a degree in social justice is frightening. It’s like sending yourself to a re-education camp for brainwashing. Once the brainwashing sets in, it’s almost impossible to reverse the effects.


21 thoughts on “Free Speech Through the Eyes of a Social Justice Warrior

  1. One has to consider there are basically only two ways the youth of today acquired this distortion of ‘freedom of speech’. it was either learned though their parents or teachers and either way does not bode well for the future of this nation.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I agree, what this gentleman does not understand is that obscene speech is by legal definition protected under the first amendment. What “hate speech” is not; is a civil liberty issue. Civil liberty is thus defined as a legal process where discrimination is allowed; but is in fact a violation or infringement of another’s rights protected under the bill of rights. Case in point, the supreme court ruled in favor of the National Socialists Party of America Vs. the Village of Skokie Illinois in 1977. The supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny the Nazi party to march in Skokie.

      I do not agree with hate period whether it be white or black supremacy groups; hate is hate. However, in the healthy discussion in terms of “free speech”, hate speech is protected under the US Constitution, as I said, this was reaffirmed in 1977 when the Supreme Court over ruled; that the Supreme court of Illinois had unconstitutionally violated their rights! Any form of censorship is in fact a violation of a person/s or group of people, to peaceful assemble and protest!

      Whether it is based on hate or not, free speech is free speech! What the problem is today is the lack of education in terms of peoples fundamental right to live as they choose; whether they hate or not. The alt left and yes I regret saying this, but it is the truth; is systematically trying to destroy the fabric of liberty in this nation. Case in point, the 2nd amendment makes it very clear that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringed means by way of law, rule or bylaws that “infringes” on another persons right. Thus the reason why the second amendment cannot be altered, or amended; for it was included in the bill of rights. The bill of rights are the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which are certain rights that the government cannot change or amend! Thus the reason why the founding fathers included it in the text of the US constitution.

      Never mind that all guns during the revolutionary war were in fact military style weapons and its is illegal to restrict access to them. However, the alt left has systematically has in the last several decades passed laws that do in fact violate another right to bear arms! The fact that prisoners have more rights when in fact the constitution states very clearly that criminals while property of the state have no rights at all. Yet are to be restored to them when they are returned to civilian life. This is no longer the case, once you have been “judged” and you have done your times you are still considered a criminal even though you have paid your dues to society which legally means your rights are restored, all of them including voting.

      I really do not agree with this gentleman, for he does not understand constitutional law or cases that have upheld the right to speak freely without fear from anyone! I am ashamed to be American because of the way the left is trying really hard to usher in a “socialist” state here in America! Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro all have one thing in common! They all were socialists! End point!


      • Thank you for the comment. It was a little confusing in places though. In the first paragraph you said you agree with “this gentleman”, is this me, the author of the blog? Or a comment on the blog?

        Also regarding civil liberties, this is an umbrella term for many rights, such as free speech, association, movement, etc. So to pass laws that violate your free speech would absolutely be a civil liberties issue. Just as an assault on free association is a civil liberties issue.

        Lastly, the last paragraph says that you disagree with “this gentlrman”. Is this a different person than the first paragraph?

        Other than that, couldnt agree more with what you said. Thanks again.


  2. ░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀██████▄▄▄░░░░░░░░░░


    • the concept of social justice by definition negates the concept of the individual. it’s not a matter of taking things too far, there is no other place to take social justice. this is the classic argument between the collective and the individual. if you believe you own yourself and can own property, then you are by definition against social justice. if you believe you don’t own yourself and the ownership of property is a bad thing, you are by definition against personal justice.


  3. Matt Wilson, you misunderstand me. Wikipedia describes Social Justice this way: A fair and jut relationship between the individual and society. The reason I referred to modern SJW types the way I did is because they seem to take things way too far with their agendas. Here is a link for you: If someone does something to himself or herself in the confines of their own environment, that is on them. When the price is imposed upon society as a whole, we all suffer.


    • that might be the most deceptive description of social.justice I have ever heard. in reality, in social justice there is no concept of the individual. well, maybe there is a concept of the individual, but essentially an “individual” is more or less equivalent to a criminal.

      When the price is imposed upon society as a whole, we all suffer- here’s the problem with social justice. a synonym for “social justice”, is “collective justice”. I mention that because it helps make the perils of this worldview more clear. there is no concept of “I did something wrong” in social justice. there is no “you”. you are your group identity. justice comes at the group level. collective justice. I did something bad. my group is punished. collective punishment. I did something good. my group did something good. collective reward.

      An example would be: white people owned slaves 150 years ago, therefore, modern white people own modern black people reparations. collective punishment.
      a black person had a hand in inventing something, therefore, black people invented that something. collective reward.

      This concept of justice is directly responsible for over 100 million deaths. not in war, just due to the nature of the society.


  4. Matt Wilson, SJW types, as I said in another post, are a bunch of pussies. That may sound harsh, however, these people seem to be offended by everything. They get offended by other people wearing Sombreros and Halloween costumes.


    • it’s more sinister than that. they are offended by everything by choice. they feel like the best way to transform our society into a Marxist paradise is to be perpetually offended, loudly and publicly. that’s why they do it.


    • I don’t really know. here in America economic classes just tell you what tax bracket you fall into, but we all have the same rights. marx saw classes a little differently. social justice uses identity classes based on the progressive stack and a hierarchy of privilege and opprrssion. not so much to do with economic classes. your economic class is just a byproduct of where you rank in the progressive stack.


  5. Matt Wilson, I actually do. As far as free speech goes, that obviously does not give someone the right to shout about a non-existent fire in a movie theater. Having said that, I would never shut down anybody’s right to their opinions, even if I adamantly disagreed with them.


    • that’s whatvseparates you from a social justice warrior. luckily, there are a lot more of us than there are of them. unluckily, they seem to have taken over the universities, the media and the government


  6. Matt Wilson, I obviously have no plans to intentionally go around offending people. The issue is the idiots who get offended by damn near everything. Here is an example: Racist and/or sexist jokes. Some people may find them to be amusing and other people may not. If a joke is made where everyone who hears it is laughing, even the person who is the recipient of the joke, I say no harm, no foul. Context is probably key.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s