# Stupid Social Justice Warrior Bullshit O' the Day. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 17, 2017, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443 "2017-03-17T22:14:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 40
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/781 "2017-04-19T16:52:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Who gets to determine the merit of an idea? I understand you’re looking for nuance, and indeed, there is time to search for nuance. Just… Not there. Not when the post you’re responding to is specifically talking about _Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopolous_. I’m sorry, but even without answering this question, if you think the ideas proposed by those fuckos, as a whole have merit, you’re _wrong_. Just like you’re wrong if you think the ideas proposed by Anthony Watts or Ken Ham or Peter Duesburg or Andrew Wakefield or the fucking cold fusion guys have merit. ---
**Author:** ![Beren\_Erchamion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/90ced4/32.png) [@Beren\_Erchamion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beren_Erchamion)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/782 "2017-04-19T17:35:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Look at the chants for “shut it down” across American campuses. Can you point to even one incident of the right trying to shut down the speech of the left? Why does it matter? Shutting down destructive hate speech is not at all comparable to shutting down positive, constructive messages. They’re different things, warranting different approaches. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/783 "2017-04-19T18:14:22Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > So, your analogy leaves you a bit ambiguous in this. You would arrest someone for shouting fire in a crowded theater, right, so are you saying you would advocate for arresting a protester who yelled “Shut it down!” at a crowded protest? This is a good question. There is a lot of grey area in these discussions, but no, not necessarily. Only if their actions were in concert with that speech. I’d be more concerned of the combination of of action and speech was designed to actually try to shut down an event and had some possibility of doing it. If it’s just three people are standing with signs and chanting, ignore them unless they try to physically prevent entry or do something else illegal. The tricky part is how one handles a crowd. If half a crowd is chanting, but not actively trying to do anything to physically impede entry, and the other half is not chanting but physically trying to impede entry, I’d say immediately arrest the latter group as you order the crowd to disperse. Those that don’t, they can get a free ride to the police station, too. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/784 "2017-04-19T18:21:58Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I understand you’re looking for nuance, and indeed, there is time to search for nuance. Just… Not there. Not when the post you’re responding to is specifically talking about _Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopolous_. I’m sorry, but even without answering this question, if you think the ideas proposed by those fuckos, as a whole have merit, you’re _wrong_. Just like you’re wrong if you think the ideas proposed by Anthony Watts or Ken Ham or Peter Duesburg or Andrew Wakefield or the fucking cold fusion guys have merit. Well, I think YOU are wrong. About Milo anyway. Hi dramaqueenery aside, he talks about some important issues. For instance, sexual assault on campuses. We don’t need to have that debate here, but the issue I’m talking about is males being decreed to be guilty without the many of the protections we take for granted in this country. And these males can go off to another school. For the innocent ones, it’s a travesty of justice, for the guilty ones, it’s an opportunity to go to another campus and find some more victims. So, we really do need to wrestle with the “Who gets to decide issue”. This has to be done on principle, not because you really, really don’t like what someone has to say. Because one day it might not be you or I getting to decide based on our own personal opinions soon what speech is worthy to be shared and which need to be verboten. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/785 "2017-04-19T18:24:49Z")
> [@Beren\_Erchamion](#): > > Why does it matter? > > Shutting down destructive hate speech is not at all comparable to shutting down positive, constructive messages. > > They’re different things, warranting different approaches. But the brings us back to my discussion with BCP, i.e., who gets to decide what speech is constructive. Speech advocating for X is constructive in that regard, no? And I’m sure that we could get into many discussions about what qualifies as hate speech (even though that is protected, too). ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/786 "2017-04-19T18:27:52Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > As an impartial observer of this thread, it’s pretty clear that **octopus** is trolling. > > **magellan01** , on the other hand, acting as a defender of free speech while advocating for suppressing Islam in Western countries is rich. He’s picking and choosing his favorite parts of the 1st Amendment to maximize his right to be a prejudiced dick. Where have I advocated for using the First Amendment to suppress Islam? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/787 "2017-04-19T18:30:01Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Good luck with that. The pro suppression folks don’t see the contradictions or the circular nature of their own arguments. > > They also don’t worry about a corrupt political or ruling class that uses “well intentioned” law to control a populace. I agree. They’re being shirt-sighted. You’d think with such a blaring example of Harry Reid changing senate rules only to have it come back to bite his side so fresh, they’d want to avoid such folly in the future. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/788 "2017-04-19T18:32:07Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Who are the “pro suppression folks” in this thread, and what sorts of “well intentioned” laws are they proposing? We’ve asked some variation of this over and over again, with no response. I’m imagining the people who say others shouldn’t be able to speak where invited? Shutting down speakers is suppression. Banning speech is suppression. Threatening with fire is suppression. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/789 "2017-04-19T18:33:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This is a good question. There is a lot of grey area in these discussions, but no, not necessarily. Only if their actions were in concert with that speech. I’d be more concerned of the combination of of action and speech was designed to actually try to shut down an event and had some possibility of doing it. If it’s just three people are standing with signs and chanting, ignore them unless they try to physically prevent entry or do something else illegal. > > The tricky part is how one handles a crowd. If half a crowd is chanting, but not actively trying to do anything to physically impede entry, and the other half is not chanting but physically trying to impede entry, I’d say immediately arrest the latter group as you order the crowd to disperse. Those that don’t, they can get a free ride to the police station, too. Why can’t the police arrest those that are in the latter category and leave the peaceful ones be, if they aren’t causing any problems. Why do the peaceful people need to disperse? What charges would you have the police file against them? Standing in the vicinity of someone else breaking a law? If 100 people are peacefully protesting and then one asshole breaks a window, why not just arrest the window breaker. Why the automatic jump to dispersing the whole crowd due to one person committing a bad act? All throughout this thread I keep seeing peaceful protesters being conflated with people committing violent and illegal acts. The two groups are constantly being talked about as one thing by the pro Milo people but they are not. I think its just a tactic to justify shutting down all protests that are in favor of something you don’t like. Just blame the entire group for the sins of a few. Doesn’t seem in line with the Constitution if you ask me. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/790 "2017-04-19T18:33:45Z")
> [@Beren\_Erchamion](#): > > Why does it matter? > > Shutting down destructive hate speech is not at all comparable to shutting down positive, constructive messages. > > They’re different things, warranting different approaches. Of course they do, precious. And who makes that decision? ---
**Author:** ![Beren\_Erchamion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/90ced4/32.png) [@Beren\_Erchamion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beren_Erchamion)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/791 "2017-04-19T18:34:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I agree. They’re being shirt-sighted. You’d think with such a blaring example of Harry Reid changing senate rules only to have it come back to bite his side so fresh, they’d want to avoid such folly in the future. No, we’re not. When a process produces bad outcomes, I oppose it. When it produces good outcomes, I support it. And there’s no inconsistency there, because processes have no moral relevance, only outcomes do. It’s no more inconsistent than using a hammer when you want to pound a nail but then putting it down and picking up a saw when you want to cut a board. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/792 "2017-04-19T18:35:22Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > I’m imagining the people who say others shouldn’t be able to speak where invited? Shutting down speakers is suppression. Banning speech is suppression. Threatening with fire is suppression. Once again, And who would those people be? In this thread, who has advocated threatening people with fire? Shutting down peaceful protesters is also suppression by the way. You are just for a different kind of free speech banning it seems. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/793 "2017-04-19T18:36:35Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Of course they do, precious. And who makes that decision? Is it possible for you to write a post without including a snide insult to the person you are responding to? Just wondering if that’s something that you are capable of. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/794 "2017-04-19T18:36:58Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > I’m imagining the people who say others shouldn’t be able to speak where invited? Shutting down speakers is suppression. Banning speech is suppression. Threatening with fire is suppression. Other than the fire joke, who is actually saying this stuff? Who wants to shut down speakers and ban speech? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/795 "2017-04-19T19:25:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I agree. They’re being shirt-sighted. You’d think with such a blaring example of Harry Reid changing senate rules only to have it come back to bite his side so fresh, they’d want to avoid such folly in the future. Right, because Mitch McConnell is a man of deep principle and integrity, who never would have gotten rid of the SC filibuster if Democrats hadn’t gotten rid of the one for other judges. Go ahead, pull the other one. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/796 "2017-04-19T19:33:52Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Other than the fire joke, who is actually saying this stuff? Who wants to shut down speakers and ban speech? Are you being deliberately obtuse? You aren’t reading the thread. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/797 "2017-04-19T19:36:04Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Are you being deliberately obtuse? You aren’t reading the thread. Just point out some examples in this thread. We’ve already had several discussions in which it’s clear we were interpreting various things differently – show me the posts you’re interpreting as wanting to shut down and ban speech. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/798 "2017-04-19T19:46:25Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Are you being deliberately obtuse? You aren’t reading the thread. So, check this out. First, chop up an onion, rough chop is fine, along with about 4 ounces of jalapenos. toss all this in a skillet on medium-high, add a bunch of garlic powder, a bit of salt, a pinch of wasabi powder (you don’t have to use the real stuff, the green horseradish is fine), a generous dash of white pepper, and saute until the onions start to turn translucent. This is when you add a bit of white wine. Toss a couple more times, then throw in your pork chops. I usually cut mine out of a pork loin, but you can use other cuts. Cover and let cook a few minutes, until the pork chops have turned mostly white, then flip them and pile the onions and jalapenos on top. Add another splash of wine, and cook a few more minutes. Once the chops are cooked fully through, remove them and place them on a plate. Go ahead and turn the skillet up to high, add just a little bit more wine, and saute for about a minute. Once the onions have a bit of caramelization on them, go ahead and dish them out on top of the chops. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/799 "2017-04-19T19:53:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Can you point to even one incident of the right trying to shut down the speech of the left? You’ve heard of Gamergate, right? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/800 "2017-04-19T20:29:10Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Just point out some examples in this thread. We’ve already had several discussions in which it’s clear we were interpreting various things differently – show me the posts you’re interpreting as wanting to shut down and ban speech. Especially posts advocating _violent_ shutting down of speech, right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443.md?page=39) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443.md?page=41)