I am wondering if we as a group would be ok with bans on regressive leftist hate speech and possibly other hate speech involving whites and men, as this has become a major issue?
What are your thoughts?
Comments (99)
sorted by:
No. I want such hateful, bigoted rhetoric shouted from the rooftops. I want it out in the open, so the moron promulgating such ideas can be humiliated for the deficiencies of their arguments.
I've noticed, at least anecdotally, that anti-white rhetoric red pills normies, especially white women who'd otherwise give black people a pass on their bullshit.
Yep. They have the right to say their bs as per free speech. I'd LOVE to hear a bit less of it, though. Personal preference.
No, there is no such thing as 'hate speech'. Hatred against white people and men should, of course, be allowed.
That said, a more limited ban on simple regressivism is just an attempt at national survival. People who hate the country and want to destroy it should not be able to profit from its protections.
Wow
No, the problem I have with this is Antonio's double standards. Say one word even slightly disparaging towards you know who and you will be banned faster than you can say "ADL". He (and DoM) needs to pick one stance or another, not just use which ever is more convenient at the time.
Not a rule 16 violation.
Rule 16 violation.
and that is the bullshit I hate.
As an aside, note how Antonio subtly implies that men are not people. It is no wonder he (she?) hates theimpossible1 so much.
You're delusional.
Obviously, hatred against Jews and women should be allowed.
Imagine what kind of unfreedom you are living in if you are not allowed to hate certain groups of people.
I don't have to imagine it.
Nope, if you live in the United Shitholes of America, you have that legal right.
How is that not a blatant R16 violation?
Are men and whites not people?
Allowing free speech about people does not make them 'not people'.
No. But I want a broadening of civil liability for speech made in public forums.
The person calling for someone (who isn't elected) to be fired in a public forum should be liable for tortious interference and damages based on lost future earnings if the target is actually fired afterwards.
Calling someone a racist without direct evidence should always be grounds for a slander and other torts.
Publicly posting someone's contact information should be liable for damages if the clear intention is to cause distress and encourage harassment.
Organizing a "protest" outside of an individual's residence or a small business should be a RICO adjacent offense where the organizer is also fully responsible for any damages that result from the action.
Basically all of the commie "I'm not touching you" shit they pull to harm anyone who speaks out in opposition because there are no consequences needs to have legal consequences attached.
Laws against false testimony would be enough to put most of what they say to the gutter since it has no real backing and would be a lie. Outside of simple name calling I suppose but that doesn't really matter much.
I'd prefer to gatekeep ne'er do wells rather than impose restrictions on them. I think this solution scales pretty well.
No. The only thing is that pushback should be allowed. I’m black and I’m sick of these fake narratives about white people. People can make all sorts of crazy accusations about whites but it’s racist to refute it.
Given that anti-male hate speech leads to increased suicide rates and that I'd love to see the feminists rotting in a prison cell like they dream of doing to "misogynists"...maybe just for a little while to avenge the victims and enjoy the schadenfreude.
Where's your proof?
Just for a little while? You really are the bigger man.
K, brand new account.
What did he say that was wrong?
What emotions are evoked by the word ‘freedom’? They’re positive, right? People like to be free, and with good reason–the millennia-long history of human conflict can be defined as a battle between freedom and slavery. But what does “freedom” mean? If you don’t know that, you can’t know what slavery is. So how will you know what’s true–and works for freedom–and what’s false–and works for slavery? If people don’t know what truth is, it becomes possible to hide anything from them. “Freedom” has been redefined–recontextualized, rather–to mean its opposite.
Think about the political context in which you have heard the word ‘freedom’ in the last few decades. Such phrases as “free love,” “freedom of movement,” and “free housing/education” have become staples of leftist political speech. Now they’re calling for “free money,” meaning “universal basic income.” They purposely ignore that such things aren’t free–that they must either be created out of the aether or taxed into existence. “Freedom” from society’s rules put in place to both protect you from harm, and to protect others from damages incurred by your hedonistic self-destruction. People who are against communist or socialist doctrine are painted as being “against freedom,” even though they are only against the “freedom” of self-destruction. “Free speech” is championed by people who seek nothing except censorship of everything they don’t like. Sane people want freedom of expression. When the words “free speech” are uttered, support for those who champion it is garnered, not knowing that what they really want is censorship of everything that questions their ideology. Among themselves, they use phrases such as “repressive tolerance” to describe censorship done “in the name” of freedom of speech.
True freedom comes not from anarchy, but from within a rightful order. Not “righteous,” because I don’t want people ascribing these statements to theocratic imposition. But rather “rightful,” as in “in accordance with natural law.” Society cannot permit the libertarian (I’m using that word very broadly here; it doesn’t quite mean what we think when we normally think about it) conception of “freedom” without collapsing into… well… multicultural subjectivism, emotion, hedonism, debauchery, degeneracy, and decay.
His conception of “freedom of speech” is much like that of a child, incapable of comprehending that true freedom–in the adult sense–comes from the conscious decision to abstain, not to indulge.
We get it you are a fascistic right wing whore who’s only problem with the current ruling class is that its on the other side of the political spectrum of retards from you.
Congratulations you have managed to achieve maximum retardation and maximum faggotry in a single comment.
Kill yourself. You’re not here for discussion. You have nothing to say. You have admitted that I am right.
Does this mean that people cannot use freedom to do bad things?
You're confusing two different senses of the word 'free'. There is 'unburdened', and 'without charge'. Free speech is not created out of the either or taxed into existence, as it does not cost anyone anything.
I do agree here. Freedom is only possible under the conditions of order. In the state of nature no one has any rights or freedom.
Now explain how any of these ideas that you do not like would not fall under 'freedom of speech'.
Liberty is not libertinism.
I agree. These opinions are not 'libertinism' though.
Which, specifically? In saying the above (I love the mass downvotes from DEGENERATE cowards too fucking retarded to prove me wrong), I’m not trying to call out any specific belief by saying that liberty is not libertinism. Objective truth exists; objectively correct behaviors exist; objectively healthy behaviors exist; therefore objectively unhealthy behaviors also exist, and those should be forbidden through various means.
Libertarianism is a desire to cherrypick what works out of traditionalism and classic conservatism while still permitting culture to be as libertine as possible. It is the movement of people who claim to want to fix the world but have no intention of going through the pain of changing themselves. They want to believe that you can solve these problems by shuffling laws around and destroying social protections in the name of ‘freedom.’
Giving people the freedom to destroy themselves and their societies and not enforcing any sort of culture that shames them for doing this is exactly what got us into this mess, and libertarianism has absolutely no answer to it. It is a failed ideology and it has completely failed to provide any sort of compelling argument for why it should exist and why it is worth perpetuating or propping up. To the libertarian, every man lives in his own little self-contained universe and the things he does mostly only effect himself. It’s hopelessly solipsistic and narcissistic. People don’t live in self-contained microcosms. If I do heroin, I’m not “just” hurting myself. I’m hurting my community. I’m hurting my fellow taxpayers who are paying to subsidize my bad decisions. I’m hurting my nation and my people by not only failing to live up to my true potential but by becoming an active burden that they need to support.
Libertarians refuse to see this or pretend that it is not relevant. Their entire ideology is based off of a deeply-rooted blend of “Me-ism” and materialism. That is why it will never work and will always fail whenever attempts are made to implement it. Libertarians are only less dangerous than communists because communists will always start killing people in an attempt to force their ideology to “work.” Libertarians will just collapse inwards and be fiscally ruined and culturally scrubbed by competitors less burdened by a sense of morality and fair play.
This is why libertarians are such useful jewish pawns. They have taken to heart the modern jewish perversion of “individualism” which so destroys societies. Beyond that, they attempt to retroactively apply this perversion to events in history. They claim that the America of the Founding Fathers, for example, believed in the same postmodernist idea of “freedom” and “liberty,” wherein anyone could freely be a heroine-addicted sex addict. This couldn’t be further from the truth, as we’ll see shortly. On the contrary, there has never been a more quintessentially libertarian society than modern America, and it is collapsing around us.
It takes as subhuman shill to prove you wrong, so I'll do it instead.
Correct.
And here's where you go off the rails.
Definitely not, but you did have freedom of speech, which means that you are allowed to advocate for hatred against white people.
If you knocked off the 'Jewish' nonsense, you and I might just agree on libertarianism.
Check the ethnicity of the founders of the ideology.
In the foundational United States? No. You weren’t. Because they weren’t mentally ill back then.
Nah, I won’t stop telling the truth. My qualms with libertarianism ideology itself have very little to do—directly—with the wrongness of judaism in general, though.
You want to know the truth about the “hatred” of libertarianism by traditionalists? The truth is we don’t hate it. We wanted it. We believed in the good of humanity, in live and let live, in leaving others alone as long as they left us alone. You know what happened? They didn’t leave us alone. They came after us and attacked us. They destroyed our hobbies, they besmirched the names of our ancestors, they ridiculed us for our beliefs, and they lied about our bodies to ‘belittle’ us. That is the truth. Your author used to be a libertarian. That’s why I want to reach out to help them. Libertarians don’t see the whole picture. They see that banks work against us. They see that an interventionist foreign policy works against us. They see that the government as a whole works against us. They simply haven’t yet asked the one critical question: ✡Who✡ is behind it all?
For so long we ignored it. You did, too. Freedom is more precious than anything, right? Wrong. A man will only be pushed so far–he will only endure so much ridicule, only tolerate so much filth–before he has had enough. He will realize what ‘degeneracy’ is. He will see how it has destroyed nations, ruined families (even the very concept of family). He will see it spread disease, poverty, and hatred. He will see fools brag about how “tolerant” they while they march to the guillotine. He will bear witness to the horrors of undiluted, animalistic ‘freedom.’ There’s nothing wrong with ‘freedom’ when it is focused on the good and pure. Libertarianism can (temporarily) work in a 100% demographically pure Protestant Anglo-Saxon society. Libertarianism is suicide when you live in a progressive, multicultural hellhole.
So now we must restore the natural laws. No more can we let people decide for themselves, as not only does it lead to our destruction, but to theirs, too. Africans admit they were far happier and more prosperous under colonialism. So were we–that’s the truth. We all need leadership, and we need to enforce what is right. We have to return to a hierarchical world where opinions mean little; only cold hard facts will be used to determine how we will run society. We have always been obsessed with the truth. You will learn that truth is more important than freedom. The truth of the world is that we are not equal and freedom destroys us. The truth of the world is that women are happy when they are mothers and that they differ from men in many aspects. The truth of the world is that African and European societies are irreconcilably different, and that if we insist on treating them equally we will only harm ourselves and them. The truth of the world is that jews hate non-jews and are trying to destroy us, and that if we do not fight to defend our right to exist, we will lose it. The truth is that there is nothing wrong with fighting back. The truth is that there is nothing our enemy hates more than us discovering the truth, specifically that some ‘freedom’ is truly slavery. Truth is more important than freedom.
See here.
No. As others have mentioned, there is no such thing as hate speech. If a white man is being retarded I have the right to insult him the same way I insult everyone else
Not on a platform like this, however, if in some alternate universe twitter or reddit et al. started to hold them to the standards others are held to it I wouldn't be shedding any tears.
Twitter, Facebook, youtube, AWS have banned Trump and Q "conspiracy theorists" "violence". No proof of wrongdoing has been given.
Number Two: There is a saying, "The slowest mule is nearest to the whip."
Number Six: And another. "He who digs a pit will one day lie in it."
Whilst I would like it personally as I lean auth-right, its important to let normies know how fucked up the minds of these lefties are.
I suppose if we're talking about a site like this the mods would personally examine the claims made in light of the evidence to determine if it's true or not so it'd depend on their bias. Just letting people say whatever and letting the community decide personally whether they agree with a statement or not through votes and replies is a more reliable system though.
No one. Your statement is predicated on an objectively false ideology. That’s why you can’t see the answer in the first place. Put another way, if you don’t even have the words to describe a concept which is true, you cannot possibly come to the truth. Any ideology which begins with truth and lies being “determined” by any observing body is doomed to never find one and be subsumed by the other. I’ll leave you to figure out which is which (hint: it’s easy).
Or we could just cite what we say and ban anyone who keeps posting lies afterward.
Yes, you didn’t read and you don’t understand. That’s fine. You don’t get it. At all. Enjoy your ineffectual bullshit that never convinces anyone of anything or changes any aspect of reality. You don’t have the words to describe truth. That’s why you can’t see it. You don’t even know what the definitions are of the words you do have, which is why you’ve allowed your judgement to be outsourced to others (who literally want you exterminated from the face of the earth, by the way). Again, that’s fine. Whatever. You don’t want to take the time to learn about objectivity, that’s on you. Maybe I’m wrong and continuing to do things that don’t work and cannot work will one day, magically, work. I’d love to be wrong. Have at it.
No. We should put such speech on a pedestal for all to criticize more thoroughly
Yes, not only banned but it's speakers gulaged. They'd happily do the same to us. It's what they push for every day. The moral high road only exists when both sides respect morals. Since only one side does, the one attempting to take the high road is just drawing out its own suicide
No. If they can't speak about racial differences freely, then neither can I. Also, I probably wouldn't have considered racial differences as very important if it wasn't for the anti-white rhetoric causing me to examine just how profound the differences are.
You can't
Which is part of the reason its an uphill battle. But to compromise on this would mean swinging the pendulum in the opposite direction instead of actually solving the problem. Thats known as the left wing approach to fixing social issues
You can.
Leftist speech is never banned.
Leftists hold all power since the Jacobin era. Guillotines, Cheka, KGB, Statsi, Red Guard, Google, same shit different time.
Conditionally, but frankly I don't expect those conditions to be met and unless they all are then my answer is no.
Basically I have a policy shopping list. And if you can promise me EVERYTHING on that list, then I'll go full fascist.
I'm curious what your conditions are.
In three words...
Jane Austen world.
I don't do compromise. Either fully realized patriarchy or full Heinlein world.
I vote Heinlein. TANSTAAFL
Spez: You're right, one or the other.
I don't think a full patriarchy would work. They'd go back to blowing things up and attacking people like the Suffragettes of the UK. (Now I think about it, that country has always been fucked.)
They blew things up because there were no consequences for their behavior.
You arrest them. You jail them for life with "trans women". Even feminists will learn.
It was the 1900s, there were consequences. Didn't stop them, their hatred fueled their movement.
Nothing will stop their war machine except dismantling it piece by piece and then making an equivalent of a second constitution to prevent anything like this ever happening again.
That is incorrect, precisely because of patriarchy, these lunatics were not punished nearly as harshly as they deserved to be. Because they were women.
Jesus Christ, stop making a bunch of blue-haired losers sound anything like that. There's no war machine, there's just control of institutions. This control must be broken. And your whining doesn't do a thing to do that.
Utopian to the core.
More consequences than there would be today, then.
Well, I'm sorry, but the whole "lol they're losers and won't do anything" narrative died a long time ago. We underestimated what they could achieve, if we don't take it seriously, we could lose everything.
Do you have a better plan?
Well, I disagree, it's just a matter of having more spine than they did.
I've long held that: "THIS is not rape culture. What follows, will be."
dont threaten them with a good time
No. Just do as they as they say and
That is what they are anyway, bunch of fucking Nazis.
They're commies. Nazism was a response for people who wanted free shit, but hated degeneracy. Commies embrace both.
No, I want a free speech society. That includes hate speech against whites, blacks, chickens, vulcans, you name it. That said, if hate speech laws are applied, they need to be a universally.
Nope.
Censoring speech only gives way for enclaves for individuals to congregate in secret.
I would much rather the bigoted be given a voice so we can identify them directly.
No, in that I’m pro “free speech”
Yes, in that I guess I’d be happier if rules were logically and equally enforced
There is no such thing as hate speech, there is just speech. Some of this speech you may not like. I don't give a fuck.
Yes, if it's not done by the government.
Gatekeeping is good.
Balkanize today.
“White genocide isn’t happening.” “Homosexuality is natural.” “Communism works.” “All cultures are equivalent.” “Fiat currency is a legitimate economic system.” “Men and women are physiologically and neurologically equal.” “Anthropogenic global warming is occurring.”
Those, and all their derivatives, basically cover everything wrong with modernity.
Nonsense. We banned nonwhites from the US and had over a century of prosperity unseen anywhere on Earth. We banned usury and fiat currency and had budget surpluses that humiliated every other nation on Earth (allowing us to industrialize and become the world’s most powerful nation) and NO DECREASE IN PURCHASING POWER, which allowed us to create the concept of a “middle class” as the dollar retained so much value that people could simply afford ever more things which were previously incomprehensible luxuries. We made rape punishable by death and had very few rapes.
It’s a very reductionist claim to assert “banning something makes it happen.” Look at Poland and abortion. And immigration. No terrorist attacks, after all.
What next? "miscegenation" or whatever the fuck?
If it wasn't, there would be more gays in 2021. Honestly, women today are the best proof that homosexuality must be natural, because if it wasn't, why would people still chase them? Why would incels chase those they despise?
Fair.
Fair. Some cultures are fucked up.
Skipping because I'm not having an argument over this.
Fair. Nobody has a stronger in-group bias than women.
I feel like this would backfire, unless they achieved the state of flat earthers.
But there are. There's been around a 6x increase in those identifying as sexually deviant over the last couple of decades. Just like cutting oneself for attention, I believe it's a choice.
What about it? Did you know that mixed race children are immediately DEAD if they need a bone marrow or organ transplant? No one–in the entire pool of 7.8 billion members of the five species of humanity–will be a donor match for them. Not even OTHER mixed race people. Because their genetics are too different.
Fucking what.
…
Do you have any idea what logic even is.
Do you have any idea what biological imperatives and the concept of genetic instinct are.
I find that more fascinating than your lack of knowledge on faggots and miscegenation.
Why? Just look at the temperature readings for the last century and a half. There’s no warming. Industrialization did absolutely fucking nothing to the climate. The sea level rise of today has never been SLOWER at any time in the last 13,000 years. Tornadoes and hurricanes are weaker and less numerous. Droughts are shorter. Monsoons are shorter. Wildfires (worldwide) are way down in the last century, even accounting for the ones that were set purposely by antifa, illegals, and muslims. There has literally never been any scientific “consensus” on the matter, either. The three studies cited as the “proof” of “consensus” were proven to be fraudulent and counted non-respondents as “responded that humans cause Earth to warm.”
no, there's no such thing as "hate speech".
I don't want to censor them. I want to [redacted].
I believe there shouldn't be government funding available to media that lies or pushes a significant bias.
I believe that laws should be fair and egalitarian. I also don't believe in hate speech laws, but as long as they apply they should apply equally.
I'm also probably for the optional use of terms that have a defined legal requirement attached. As an example, if someone created an article and attaches "truthful"TM, they need to be able to legally prove they made a sincere attempt to have the article be objectively factual, and make a very public confession if false. Not sure how well it'd work in reality, especially when you look into how complaints of provable CBC bias in reporting are handled (or not). The use of any term needs to be optional to otherwise allow for free speech. The exception being for state media, like how US Universities are supposed to abide by the constitution if they receive federal funding.
No because hopefully the majority of us arent massive hypocritical right wing retards.
I'd rather it be a rule that leftist have to be bullied relentlessly every time they post here.