I think you are missing the "warrior" part in SJW. SJW are totalitarians, with a penchant for mob behaviour.It is only a universal truth, if you define a SJW to be someone who fits the qualities you ascribe to them, but in that case it becomes a tautology. Someone who fights for social justice maybe a person who is trying to help the newly arrived refugees in their community, for example, or oppose racism in their city by organising community festivals and celebrations of ethnic diversity. Rather than the armchair warriors you may tend to encounter on the internet, such people are doers and care about bettering their communities. Nothing whatsoever to do with totalitarianism or even any absolutes.
As we have a FPTP system the two parties that dominate become "broad churches". In effect that means that people who aren't really conservative or right wing end up joining the party in order to get elected. The Equalities and Diversity Act in conjunction with hate speech legislation set the ground work for the ever growing "equality and diversity" drive throughout the civil service and the private sector, with a knock on effect to the rest of society. The civil service is now full of middle managers whos only job it is it to promote E&D ad nauseam and with ever increasing ideological fervor. I know, for example, that within the NHS some trusts enforce mandatory "unconcious bias training" in an Orwellian attempt to indoctrinate people into believing "white priviliedge" and other dogmas of critical and conflict theory. It is now to the point where right wingers like I dare not even voice criticism of said ideological dogmas for fear of losing our livelihoods. Instead of heading down this "progressive" totalitarian hell hole we could instead, if the Tories actually got their act together, go for classical liberal values of free speech, equality of opportunity and meritocracy. For example, in way of speech we could opt for something along the lines of the first amendment in the US. Sadly we don't. If you think this is because there is wide voter support for such things, that hasn't been my experience. Once again, due to the FPTP system people will vote either Tory or Labour even if they do not fully agree with their policies. There simply is no other viable choice if what you want to do is keep the other party out of office.Perhaps you'd like to come up with some substantial examples, but it appears that the voters are invested in the values you might be decrying here, which is the reason the Conservative Govenrment doesn't "stand up to them". Like your "loathsome hate speech laws" which punish vilifying people on the basis of race, sexuality, nationality or religion, which seem the minimum decorum a diverse society requires to actually get along. A wiki page with selected cases does not list anything particularly loathsome, as silly as the sieg heil pug case may be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_spee ... ed_Kingdom
It is not for you nor anyone else to tell people which opinions they can and cannot voice. What gives you this special right to decide in advance which ideas other adults can and cannot hear? Why do you want some faceless bureaucrat to decide in advance what Dan74 can and cannot hear, see or read? No real need to answer. These are things for you to think about, for when you call for hate speech you call for a censor. That is, another human being to decide what ideas are and are not acceptable.the minimum decorum a diverse society requires to actually get along.
The best society for me to live in is one in which I can be offended, where it will be possible that I will hear homophobic and other distasteful views. It would be the best society because that would be a free society.
To my knowledge Ven. Dhammanando is not a political activist.I think all monks have views. Even our own Bhante Dhammanando has posted political stuff in the past and continues to do so on his FB. The difference I think is that Bhante Dhammanando's views align much more closely with yours, hence your lack of concern.
You can of course dislike it. That is up to you.I think regardless of one's personal feelings of compassion, it is wrong to give a platform to someone who espouses the ideology that was both predicated upon and responsible for the worst war and genocide of the past 100 years.
So you are ok when monks engage in slander. Got it.If the monk was behaving in a deeply immoral way and I had the evidence, yes, it would be my responsibility to make it public. But this is not the case. The most you can claim here is that Bhante Sujato has strong political convictions, displays bias and perhaps overstates his claims. I don't think this is behaving inappropriately. It is just stating views you disagree with.
We are now, however, getting off topic.