An Era of Censorship?

I stumbled across an article while wandering online yesterday and it scared me a little. I’ll cover why and the implications I think we have seen, are seeing, and will continue to see in regards to this problem. It’s probably best you give the article a read before continuing on with the rest of this post:

A Little Bit of Context

Well, this theory of the "okay" gesture was originally a hoax on a popular forum named 4chan and shows just how easily fake news and ideas can spread. As the story goes, a user posted a conspiracy of how the popular emoji and "okay sign is symbolism of racism with a deeper meaning : "'White Power." See below:

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. However , not only does this highlight the problem of fake news, which is a problem in and of itself, but also the mindset of SJWs who latch onto this sort of idea and run with it, causing more harm than good.

Unfamiliar with SJWs (Social Justice Warrior Culture)? Read this article to gain an idea of what SJW culture is about.

Now, as mentioned previously, the problem with this whole thing is that despite initially starting as a joke, it is actually causing real world controversy and opposition. SJWs and officials are now actually using this against people, similar to the story above about police officers, despite no malice behind its apparent "new meaning" (Just a side-note : 4chan theory started after the officers were charged). Here's an outline of what is known as "The Circle Game" which has been misunderstood on purpose:

The Circle Game - a Game of Peripheral Vision, Trickery, and Motor Skills

The game starts out when the Offensive Player creates a circle with their thumb and forefinger, not unlike an "A-Okay" signal, somewhere below his waist.

His goal is to trick another person into looking at his hand. If the Victim looks at the hand, he has lost the game, and is subsequently hit on the bicep with a closed fist by the offensive player.

There we have it. How has such an innocent gesture and game become more than that and a point of racial discussion? Obviously, the answer to that is because it was introduced through a forum as a joke, but I guess the next real question is: Why has it gained interest beyond that and now carry weight as a racial symbol? Well, it's because the SJW movement/mindset has been the driving force behind it . But even more so, it's the driving force behind a lot of other destructive behavior and the ideology is corrupted by the behavior of the individuals who push it (more on this later). The problem I have is not with this particular situation, but what this suggests long term and the effects it may have for the rest of us on a grander scale. We have already witnessed that the officials dealing with this situation have acted irrationally towards the officers in response to pressure from SJWs and in fear of being condemned. If we can see something as innocent as a game be turned into a "racial-superiority" symbol, then it seems we may have a dull future ahead.

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Action?

Over the past 6 months I have seen an increase in stories of similar distaste condemning what seems to be rather normal behavior; furthermore this has almost exclusively been aimed at the Western population — the USA and UK —specifically towards people in positions of authority such as University teachers/lecturers, police force and MP's — not forgetting to mention everyday people working in contact with these professions. While I think it's important to understand the intent behind the use of gestures and words, essentially you're going to have a small group of people adopt the use of certain gestures, symbols, and actions to articulate hate and that's a fact, but a hand gesture isn't hateful just because a minority of radical-right use it, as well as SJW's and government saying it is.

If a piece of legislative content passed for law and had some form of infringement on freedom of speech and compelled people to use or refrain from certain words and actions in the USA or UK, I'd like to think the general population would object; but it seems slowly and surely, what were once normal actions like a simple hand gesture and other seemingly normal acts of showing appreciation to one's own culture, religion, and people, is being labelled "hateful" or "aggressive" in such a subtle manner that it does not worry the population enough to care in the present moment to object or challenge it. The best perspective on this in my opinion should be clear and simple as a direct sacrifice: Today's actual freedom of speech and behavior, for the destructive future of freedom of speech and actions to be dismembered beyond comprehension and irreconcilable.

In addition to the point above, it's important to mention that a compelled speech law (Bill C-16) is actually an active law in Canada in regards to the use of Transgender terms and vocabulary. This was met with opposition, obviously, but listen to what this entails in terms of consequence:

"Mandating use of pronouns requires one to use words that are not their own that imply a belief in or agreement with a certain theory on gender," he added."If you try to disavow that theory, you can be brought before the Human Rights Commission for mis-gendering or potentially find yourself guilty of a hate crime. To sum up, on the subject of gender, we're going to have government-mandated speech."

Do you understand that? You could be brought before the federal tribunal, have to face the human rights commission and face potential charges of a hate crime. Astounding. This is a slippery slope. The fact that a form of speech has been mandated is reprehensible and this piece of legislation even goes as far as to almost — in my opinion —have an impact on how people are to think, with the point being made that "anti-bias training" will be considered just adds weight to that.

Where will this lead us, how far will it be taken, and will it extrapolate into other areas of life?

One Year On

You might have noticed that the bill was first introduced in 2016 and subjected to three hearings before it was actually passed on June 19, 2017. Political Correctness seems to have made a significant appearance in politics from 1970–1990s but it has taken Western culture by storm in the past ~8 years in particular. The idea obviously appeals to a younger audience, hence the reason it is rife in the college and university demographic and here's a part I can empathize with: The betterment of certain areas of the culture and the world as a whole; but at 18–25-years-old it's fair to say perspective on the world is met with very limited understanding . I say this as a 21-year-old myself. I believe at this age the greatest thing to focus on is individualism, dealing with responsibility, and working on ourselves and becoming self aware as an individual—the greater good starts on an individual scale. There's a reason top level officials and high authority individuals hold those positions and it's because they are in the older age demographic . It's not simply a matter of age but it makes sense that the longer you gain experience in the world, you spend working on your particular craft, the easier and more informed you can articulate your views and perspective on chosen subjects and your understanding of the world increases. This in no way means that younger generation ideas, thoughts, and propositions should go unnoticed; in fact quite the opposite. I think this is what drives the world forward. As long as there is synergy between the thoughts, ideas, and conscientiousness of the younger generation against the industriousness, experience and knowledge of the older generation things should work to the best degree possible. Of course it is important to discuss these issues. Ultimately, one day the 20-somethings will be the 40-somethings in high-authority positions and government—the interesting thing will be how their views will have been shaped over the next 20–30 years and if in the position to change something, how they will set about doing so? It seems to me the movement is failing through its incapability to intellectualize and articulate —it's aggressive and non-collaborative at best.

To Sum That Last Sentence Up:

The way it is enforced and argued is contradictory. An SJW fights for causes over-zealously, dishonestly, and often hypocritically. They have no interest in reasonable discussion or debate. They people see themselves as fighting for the "greater good"—which is somewhat truthful— but whether the idea of socialism they push will work is another matter. They are willing to do quite despicable things if it means spreading their message and silencing opponents. An SJW isn't simply a progressive; they are dangerously hypocritical, regressive ideologues who lie, bully, and play victim while signalling virtue. They force their puritanical views on others with no regard for their freedoms as individuals. In fact, individuality is a foreign concept to the SJW who must always see everything in terms of groups, systems, and identity politics. They will criticize racists and sexists for judging people by skin colour and gender, but they will also judge people by skin colour and gender.

The Top 5 Instances of Political Correctness Gone Mad in the Past Year:

It now seems to me that Political correctness is not only attacking verbal freedom. It looks as though we're going to be rendered useless by restriction on action, body language, and possibly even how we think. It will be interesting to see how it's combated in the future, but the SJW goal is idealistic and fundamentally flawed.