And of course the "critical speech is hate speech, and hate speech is not allowed" line only applies to speech against SJWism. Speech in favor of SJWism is permitted as free speech no matter how negative.
Case in point (and I don't mean to divert the thread, but just give an example of SJW's complete hypocrisy on this): Irene Gallo, the creative director at Tor Books who, regarding the Hugo controversy, wrote
There are two extreme right-wing to neo-nazi groups, called the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies respectively, that are calling for the end of social justice in science fiction and fantasy. They are unrepentantly racist, sexist and homophobic. A noisy few but they’ve been able to gather some Gamergate folks around them and elect a slate of bad-to-reprehensible works on this year’s Hugo ballot.
She smeared the authors and other Sad/Rabid puppies as racist, sexist, homophobic neo-nazis and the books they recommended as terrible, despite 1) women and minorities numbered among the Puppies and their supporters, and 2) some of the books the Puppies nominated being Tor books, books from her own company.
The Puppies responded by calling her words wrong and possibly libelous, and asking Tor to rebuke her if this was not Tor's official position. In other words, the Puppies countered speech with speech, in classic free speech style. You are free to say what you want, then take the consequences, including people calling you wrong and a liar.
Comments by Gallo's supporters included:
--"Isn’t it ironic how quickly free-speech-obsessed Internet jerks forget their censorship concerns when it’s an influential woman (particularly one with “SJW values”) that’s being silenced?…"
--"I find it no small irony that both the Sad and Rabid Puppies — who so strongly espouse freedom of speech, would then endeavor to rob that from Irene Gallo unless, gasp, we’re talking about another double-standard in play? It’s almost like women get treated differently in the world and held to different standards… hmm. *strokes beard thoughtfully*…
I stand by Irene Gallo because she is a person who has the right to air her personal sentiments, regardless of whether or not we find them disagreeable. She has that right without being smacked across the nose by her employer in a sanctioned public shaming. I do not agree with Tor’s posturing on this point because it represents a double-standard of sexism and favoritism. I do not agree with Tor because they are opening the tent flap to the worst among us. The publisher is cultivating an invasive species with a letter like that. They are lending them space on the debate floor, turning this whole affair into a clownish, brutal, and bullying mosh pit."
--"So now the Sad Rabid Puppies want someone ousted for something she said. Thought crime! How socially-justicey warriory of them."
So according to SJW's, criticizing what Gallo said is "silencing" her, but kicking someone off Youtube isn't censorship.
(Source for info about the Gallo incident: https://www.blackgate.com/2015/06/10/int...ene-gallo/ )
Case in point (and I don't mean to divert the thread, but just give an example of SJW's complete hypocrisy on this): Irene Gallo, the creative director at Tor Books who, regarding the Hugo controversy, wrote
There are two extreme right-wing to neo-nazi groups, called the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies respectively, that are calling for the end of social justice in science fiction and fantasy. They are unrepentantly racist, sexist and homophobic. A noisy few but they’ve been able to gather some Gamergate folks around them and elect a slate of bad-to-reprehensible works on this year’s Hugo ballot.
She smeared the authors and other Sad/Rabid puppies as racist, sexist, homophobic neo-nazis and the books they recommended as terrible, despite 1) women and minorities numbered among the Puppies and their supporters, and 2) some of the books the Puppies nominated being Tor books, books from her own company.
The Puppies responded by calling her words wrong and possibly libelous, and asking Tor to rebuke her if this was not Tor's official position. In other words, the Puppies countered speech with speech, in classic free speech style. You are free to say what you want, then take the consequences, including people calling you wrong and a liar.
Comments by Gallo's supporters included:
--"Isn’t it ironic how quickly free-speech-obsessed Internet jerks forget their censorship concerns when it’s an influential woman (particularly one with “SJW values”) that’s being silenced?…"
--"I find it no small irony that both the Sad and Rabid Puppies — who so strongly espouse freedom of speech, would then endeavor to rob that from Irene Gallo unless, gasp, we’re talking about another double-standard in play? It’s almost like women get treated differently in the world and held to different standards… hmm. *strokes beard thoughtfully*…
I stand by Irene Gallo because she is a person who has the right to air her personal sentiments, regardless of whether or not we find them disagreeable. She has that right without being smacked across the nose by her employer in a sanctioned public shaming. I do not agree with Tor’s posturing on this point because it represents a double-standard of sexism and favoritism. I do not agree with Tor because they are opening the tent flap to the worst among us. The publisher is cultivating an invasive species with a letter like that. They are lending them space on the debate floor, turning this whole affair into a clownish, brutal, and bullying mosh pit."
--"So now the Sad Rabid Puppies want someone ousted for something she said. Thought crime! How socially-justicey warriory of them."
So according to SJW's, criticizing what Gallo said is "silencing" her, but kicking someone off Youtube isn't censorship.
(Source for info about the Gallo incident: https://www.blackgate.com/2015/06/10/int...ene-gallo/ )