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.


The Politics of Feelings

Watching the political coverage lately, I feel like I’m livingĀ in a bizarro world where the laws of common sense are completely the opposite of common and things that make sense. This is true on both sides of the political spectrum. I am not going to use this blog to condemn or praise either side. I will criticize both sides, and try to work through what I think may be happening though. I chose the below examples because they are the ones in the spotlight right now. Every other Facebook post is about one of them. These are guys you either love or hate. I hate both of them. That’s not a criticism, just an observation. Having said that, I think I get both of them.

On one side you have democrats like Bernie Sanders, who want to make everything “free”. College is free. Healthcare is free. Jobs for everyone at whatever arbitrary wage he deems “livable”. You want it? He’ll give it to you. Free. Unless you are one of those evil people who actually produce what the rest of us consume. If you are one of those evil people you will pay, oooohhhh you will pay. People love them some Bernie Sanders. Especially college students who by and large have never had to pay for anything. People love him because he “says it like it is”, and is not afraid to ruffle some feathers. He is a self-described socialist and is not afraid to admit it (unless he’s running for president, then he denies it). One compliment I can give Mr. Sanders is that I get the feeling he truly believes what he advocates. Honesty is a rare commodity, especially in Washington, DC. It’s easy to see young inexperienced people and old hippies could fall for the dribble that he spews. I mean really? Free college for anyone who wants to go to a state college? I guess the professors, textbook providers, school related businesses and everyone else related to public universities will be perfectly ok with providing their goods and services at no charge. No? Well how do those people get paid if the education is free? Oh, that’s right. Those evil producers who make everything and give everyone jobs will be forced to pay for your kids’ college. Free.

On the other side you have republican superstar Donald Trump dominating the airwaves and social media. Love him or hate him, he is saying what conservatives want to hear right now. He is riding the wave caused by his remarks about Mexicans a few weeks ago. Apparently, he thinks half the people coming from Mexico illegally are rapists and felons. Of course that is wrong on a variety of levels, but it taps into the feelings of American’s towards illegal aliens in a very Trumpesque over the top way that makes people scream, “He says it like it is! You can’t handle the truth!” Trump has the appeal of not being a Washington insider. To my knowledge he has never held any kind of office. What Trump is, is an opportunist. In the past he was a huge admirer and supporter of Hillary Clinton and universal healthcare. He calls himself a “big second amendment guy” and then advocates for outlawing assault weapons, because only criminals and cops need those. Now that it’s a popular position, he wants to repeal and replace Obamacare. He wants to reduce or eliminate corporate taxes, but advocates for a 14.25% one-time tax on the top 1% because they hold 99% of the wealth and can afford it (paraphrasing). He is really good at making general statements and platitudes without having an actual plan to back them up. He is the worst kind of crony capitalist in his own business pursuits. He at one time tried to take private property through eminent domain. He has strengthened the already dizzying array of necessary license agreements necessary to open a casino in Atlantic City to make competition against him harder. The one compliment I will give Donald Trump is that he is really good figuring out what people want to hear and then telling them that. In times past, I will remind everyone that “crony capitalism” went by a different, more sinister name. You can discover that name for yourself.

So what does all this mean? Why these two? My best guess is that these two guys fill a need. They are a voice that is getting overshadowed by the established leadership on both sides of the political spectrum. People are sick of hearing meaningless political talking points, stated in the same words by different politicians and pundits over and over again. They are saying new things, in a non-politically correct way that speak to the core belief systems of normal citizens everywhere. They are blunt and unapologetic in their commentary. Frankly, it’s refreshing to hear something different. Never mind what they are actually saying is nonsensical, ridiculous, without factual merit and utterly ridiculous in many cases. They make themselves seem to the average guy, with no political pull, just like them. They will work for you when they get to Washington. I would caution everyone to not only listen to what they promise, but to ask how they plan on doing it. Before you grab your pitchfork and cleverly worded poster and head out to the Mexican border or a mega-millionaire’s home, say to yourself, “I know I liked what he said, but does that make it true?” I would certainly personally benefit if all state schools were free, but can we really get enough new money from rich people to pay for it? No. Of course not. Sure, illegal immigration may be a problem in some areas, but are half of them really rapists and felons? No, of course not.

Bottom line, get past the feelings politicians give you. The worst thing anyone can do in politics is trust a politician. Americans love to cheer for their team and boo the opposition. Politics is not sports, it’s not professional wrestling with baby faces and heels. These are real people with real control over your lives, treat them as such. Like I said, I’m not condemning Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. If they weren’t in the headlines I would have used other examples. If you like them, by all means, you be you. I just think you are wrong, that’s all.

Gay Marriage: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The Supreme Court ruled today that state bans on gay marriage were unconstitutional. My first reaction upon reading the news was a series of conflicting thoughts like, “that’s great! It’s nice to see that the 14th amendment is being upheld and all people are being treated equally”, and, “so much for state’s rights! I guess we aren’t free to choose our own laws after all”, and, “that’s great for gay people, but wouldn’t it be better for everyone if the federal government didn’t recognize anyone’s marriage instead of recognizing everyone’s marriage?”

I’m a live and let live kind of guy. If what you are doing does not have an effect on my life, I don’t feel the need to regulate what you do. I will be happy to offer my opinion, or give some sage advice, but that’s as far as I want to go. Gay marriage has no effect on my life. Most people seem to be against gay people getting married, both republicans and democrats. I think this is more about the word “marriage” than anything else. It’s a religious word, and I can’t think of a single religion that is friendly towards homosexuality. Getting married to a same sex partner, then, means to be recognized by the creator and thereby condoned. I guess that’s why when you frame the question in a different way, like “Do you support civil unions for gay people?” many more religious people would say yes.

The 14th amendment, in part, says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This makes it pretty clear that a state can’t make laws taking rights away from some citizens that it grants to others. It might serve well to remind everyone in the purpose of the constitution itself, to protect the people by limiting the power of the government. Using the government to limit the freedom of the people do things like marry one another, or anything else that doesn’t harm 3rd parties, goes against the spirit of the constitution. The thing about freedom is that it’s hard. Everyone loves to tout freedom when they are doing things that they like, but when other people are doing things they don’t like it gets harder.

At least 30 states, including some liberal ones like California, and conservative ones have voted down by popular vote the legalization of gay marriage. Most of the time, even in liberal states, it was a lopsided vote against gay marriage. If the constitution does not speak of marriage specifically, does this not fall to the 10th amendment, which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.“? This amendment, which liberals can never seem to acknowledge and republicans never seem to forget, has become a catch-all for almost every action taken by the states. There is a good reason for this as most of the time the federal government works way too slow to be useful. In this case the will of the people were thwarted directly and the power of the federal state prevailed. Sure, I agree with the Supreme Court this time, but it’s still overturning the will of the people, not just a few crazies, millions of people who have voted on the subject. That’s not a good precedent. I would say to gay people and Christian conservatives alike, be careful what you wish for.

If I may speak directly to the gay people who are celebrating this Supreme Court decision, what exactly are you celebrating? You saw the state defining straight marriage so you said please state define marriage for me too! Don’t get me wrong, I completely support full rights for gay couples. I don’t think there should be any rights straight married couples have that gay couples should not have, period. Gay people are for the most part liberal. Confronted with alternative, very understandably so. The first instinct of any liberal movement is to use the government to get what you want. For the life of me I can’t figure out why any self-respecting gay person would be happy being, for political purposes, relegated to a simple letter in the LBGTAQ. Strength in numbers right? Is an average gay man’s experience no different than that of a transgendered person, or an asexual? How insulting is that? Can I offer a different solution? How about instead of having the government define your marriage, get the government out of your marriage, and straight marriage. Your benefits would be your benefits to do with what you please. If the federal government treated everyone as an individual and gave you ownership over those benefits. Marriage would stay a religious ceremony, nothing more. You would not need to get married for protection anymore. It could be done by contract. It wouldn’t even have to be couples. Any two people of legal age could be tied contractually, brother and sister, best friends, without regard to who has sex with whom. Let religion keep their traditions and you make your own.

If I may speak to the conservatives wringing their hands with worry over this decision. I thought you were for limited government? How exactly is trying to amend the constitution with an amendment or laws that limits the rights of people to choose who they spend their life with, limited government? How can you support any law that limits people when they aren’t hurting anyone? How about practicing what you preach? Just because you don’t like dude’s kissing dude’s doesn’t mean they are hurting you or killing the concept of marriage. Apply your limited government ideals and get the government out of marriage. You get to keep your religious traditions and gay people get to start their own. It’s a good starting point. Maybe, once you see that the world didn’t end, you will start applying the limited government concept to other areas of life. To be honest, this kind of thing is exactly why I no longer consider myself a conservative, or a republican. You can sleep easy in the knowledge that you will never be as bad as a liberal, but you are not far off at this point. I have faith that one day the party will come back to its ideals. The next time you consider a law, or amendment ask yourself if it limits the people’s freedom to choose or the government’s ability to control. Always vote to limit the government’s ability to control.

I will close by saying again, freedom is hard. You only know you are free when you protect choices that you disagree with. Speech that you disagree with. Pursuits that you disagree with. Remember that not everyone agrees with you, and when you start outlawing behaviors that you disagree with, eventually your behavior will be outlawed.