> people horrified that someone they disagree with might be allowed to have a voice on the national stage. You haven't been paying attention to events of the p

> people horrified that someone they disagree with might be allowed to have a voice on the national stage. You haven't been paying attention to events of the past few years. The SJWs have been very clear that the only permitted voice is theirs. That anyone who questions them deserves to be shunned, censored, shut down, vilified, and attacked. > As it is I find it kind of frightening how much anger seems to be building up around what appears to be a fabricated danger. You're out of touch with events. In the 1940's we had 18-20 year-olds go "over the top" in France. D Day, Iwo Jima, etc. Now, we have 18-20 year-olds hug pillows in "safe spaces" because someone who disagrees with them is giving a presentation in another building. I submit that exchanging bravery for cowardice is a net loss for society. You're getting downvoted because your comments are at odds to most peoples experiences. See the witch-hunting that went on with the University of Virginia rape accusation. Or the Duke Lacrosse team. In both case, self-proclaimed SJWs found the groups guilty. And demanded sanctions, bans, "forced education", public shaming, etc. Later, of course, the accusations turned out to be false. The prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse case was disbarred for his activities in what can only be called a witch hunt. I submit that the rule of law is better than public lynchings. That careful analysis of events is better than knee-jerk reactions. Try joining an SJW group and asking questions, or raising a dissenting opinion. You'll see group-think enforced with a speed and efficiency that rivals communist party meetings. And see the public statements by people who've left SJW groups. Olivia Benson led the charge against "double plus ungood" thinkers. No tactic, no matter how slimy was beneath her. After she left, she publicly said that the SJW attacks on her were worse by far than the attacks from the people she opposed. When the "evil" groups act nicer than the "good" groups, I submit that you have your labels reversed. And lastly: > I've yet to see anyone imprisoned for their speech by SJWs. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guthrie_vs._Elliott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guthrie_vs._Elliott He's on trial for "criminal harassment". An examination of the public facts shows that no such thing occurred. He publicly disagreed with SJWs. They then worked together to find ways to get him charged. His bail restrictions have destroyed his life. The judge could have forbid him from using twitter, or having contact with his accusers, or making public statements about the trial. Instead, as a self-employed graphical designer, he was banned from using the Internet for until the trial was over. Whatever the result of the trial, the SJWs have succeeded in using the criminal justice system to destroy an opponent. I submit that such behavior is unethical, reprehensible, and fundamentally opposed to anything resembling "justice". That's why you're getting downvoted. You're saying such behavior isn't that bad, and that the anti-SJWs are terrible people. No, no, they're not. The SJWs have a long track record of evil behavior. And of shaming, shunning, lying, and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.