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?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (99)
sorted by:
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.
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.