The Stuff

@egghead327

1,362 posts

tendie-defender

From Trex Arms.

siryouarebeingmocked

For bonus irony points, Adam Baldwin - the 97%er actor in the scene - is pretty conservative.

looking-for-h0me

The issue most people have with cultural appropriation is when you do or take something that a culture was or is punished for, in the instance or Dreamcatchers, indigenous people were and are still murdered for being indigenous. There was a time when it was not legal to practise indigenous traditions such as having a Dreamcatcher, so when you don’t acknowledge this you can be doing more harm to the community. I am not an authority of all native individuals but I believe If you want a Dreamcatcher you MUST support an authentic native artist, they are choosing to share their culture and traditions with you, that is their right as an individual to choose to share it or not, however if you buy from box stores or non indigenous sources you are harming the community by taking the culture from a community that is not consenting to share it with you. They cannot consent unless you purchase from them. Also take a moment and read or ask the teachings of the Dreamcatcher That way you can fully appreciate the traditions and culture and respect it the way it deserves to be. Again just one opinion and I am not an authority on the subject.

"I'm not an authority but I'm gonna tell you what you need to do"

It's a dreamcatcher, Karen chill.

looking-for-h0me

@r4cs0 congrats on missing the whole fucking point, it’s not JUST a Dreamcatcher, it a group on people that still face genocide.

Taking me out of context is spreading more ignorance. I am not an authority of all native individuals. But I am sharing the opinion of one native individual (that is also echoed by many). So my opinion is valid.

People aren't getting killed over a fucking dreamcatcher, Karen chill.

Cultural gatekeeping is xenophobic and racist. If someone wants a dreamcatcher, buy one, or make your own.

whitepeopletwitter

Eventually, you start running out of other people's money.

Feminism and the men's rights movement

On paper, these two groups should coexist peacefully and actually compliment each other. Unfortunately, one of these groups has a very long history of only fighting for more rights/privileges/power for the gender they support and not for equality. One of these groups actively fights to take away rights from the gender they don't fight for. One of these groups claims to fight for equality for all, but actively fights to silence the other group. One of these groups has full control of the media and public opinion. One of these groups is openly sexist and is proud of that fact. One of these groups is responsible for the suicide of someone who was just trying to help people. One of these groups uses false/misleading/debunked facts and statistics to further their cause. One of these groups cares not about the fight for equality but to gain more followers and power.

One of these groups is evil and the world needs to wake the fuck up and stop listening to them.

If you think the evil group is the men's rights movement, I'm sorry but you have been misled.

Sorry i dont usually post things like this but NSNBSJSHKBDVBSHSIVSKGSIHSJDBBKSIBKHSHSJO

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch

uh huh

“If you don’t acknowledge your victim-hood like a good girl, we will dismiss you as a man-pleaser and housewife. Know your place, girl!” That’s how these type of people sound, I swear.

alfred-f-jones-world-hero

AS A PILOT SEES THE WORLD......

A Lake in Pomerania, Poland

Amsterdam

Athens

Bac Son Valley, Vietnam

Barcelona

Bern

Cape Town

Central Park, New York City

Chicago

Dubai

Dubrovnik

Giza Pyramids, Egypt

Mali, Maldives

Mangroves in New Caledonia

Marina Bay, Dubai

Maze at Longleat, England

Meskendir Valley, Turkey

Mexico City

Moscow

Namib Desert, Namibia

Niagara Falls, U.S.A.

Paris

Rio de Janeiro

Seattle

Shanghai

Terraced Rice Fields, China

Tulip Fields, The Netherlands

Vancouver

Vatican City

Venice

too beautiful not to

Planes a futuro

andrerosset-deactivated20220924

Seattle ❤️

>Niagara falls

>USA

Its ours now

Too be fair, the shot was taken in US airspace, so I’ll allow it. But we obviously know which side of the river OP was born on...

unaffiliatedpangolin

Leftist: “We need to put limits on free speech because of all the Nazis.”

Normal people: “No we need to protect free speech. The same freedom that lets them speak also protects your right to speak.”

Leftist: “I’m talking about Nazis they don’t have a right to say those things and we need to put a stop to it.”

Normal people: “Yeah, I understand what you’re saying but the unintended consequences will be the eventual erosion of your right to speak freely. Today it’s the so-called Nazis and then one day it will be you. You are undermining everybody’s rights in the future because you are uncomfortable right now.”

accidentallypatriotic-deactivat

This.

Also, let them speak. Let them show their evil for all to hear, so that good people can prove them wrong and decry their hatred. Hatred kept in the shadows grows faster. I want to know who around me holds those views.

Are... are ya'll really that dumb?

Silencing Nazis isn't an infringement on your freedom of speech. Why? Because it's not putting restrictions on *freedom of speech*, it's ENFORCING the law against *hate speech*, which in most developed countries, is illegal. US doesn't have it illegalized because the US is racist and can market off of it.

Why should hate speech be illegal?

Because hate speech is blatantly wishing harm and inciting violence against specific groups of people. You have zero right to harass someone. It is illegal to provoke someone into doing a violent act, as it states, "provocation is when a person is considered to have committed a criminal act partly because of a preceding set of events that might cause a reasonable person to lose self control." in wiki. Hate speech is a hate crime. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it is meant to be illegal so as to prevent people getting killed, or mass genocide happening for the umpteenth fucking time in the past 100 years alone! You have no right to go around saying "kill xyz people". It should not be legal. It should not be legal for you to go around demeaning and harassing innocent people and trying to get others to follow suit. Absolutely not.

Second of all, you absolute fuck nut, the nazis got into government because they were allowed to spew their fucking hate speech! It's infiltrating our government! Why do you think people like Donald Trump are voted to be president?! They take vulnerable people who feel like they have nothing and give them something to feel entitled over. They make primarily white people feel entitled to land, over your body, over your reproductive organs, over your sexuality, over your race, and over your religions. They've already been succeeding because they have a platform to recruit people with, which is how genocide happens. Which is how the holocaust happened. You think people looked at them and went, "Wow these guys are evil, we should stop them." NO! THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. 11 MILLION PEOPLE DIED.

I would rather give up my ability to partake in hate speech than see yet another person die. I would rather give up my ability to partake in hate speech than to see another nazi who hates women and poc and LGBT and etc be posted on fox news, CNN, or any form of social media as if they're just "old and traditional" or "a harmless conservative." That's what they want from you.

Now quit making excuses for them!

unaffiliatedpangolin

Your entire wall of text is already summarized by the third paragraph I wrote in the OP.

Much of your argument is based off logical fallacies as well, and can simply be discarded.

>other countries ban “hate speech”

An appeal to popularity also people go to jail over tweets. Which is kind of my point, people shouldn’t go to prison for fucking tweets.

>US profits off of hate speech.

Citation needed and even if it did that isn’t a reason to ban it. I doubt you are ok with “non-profit” hate speech so the amount of money generated is irrelevant even to your own point.

> It’s wishing harm and inciting violence.

Look at other countries hate speech laws and you will quickly find that it isn’t even that. In Canada you can be penalized for not respecting made up pronouns. Is that the same as inciting violence? No. So again the slippery slope I described in the OP is real which is why I made the OP.

Additionally you have a problem with Trump, do you really want his administration making the hate speech laws? Do you think those laws would be used to silence certain people? If you answered “yes, he would abuse those laws” then that’s the exact reason nobody under any administration should be able to make laws against “hate speech”. Because those laws give anyone in power the green light to abuse those laws.

So just like I described in the OP you want to give up your rights because you are uncomfortable in the moment. You want to cut out your own tongue because you fear someone else might say something unpleasant. You are literally the person I just described. Thank you for giving me a first hand example to show that this wasn’t an exaggeration or straw man of leftists.

Would you also give up your 4th amendment rights too? “Sure the cops can search me and confiscate my stuff if it helps put one Nazi in prison, what to I need civil rights for?” Would you give up your right to vote so that they couldn’t either? And, ironically, when you’ve eliminated all of your rights you’ll find that you’re probably describing the level of rights people had in Nazi Germany.

siryouarebeingmocked

> Because hate speech is blatantly wishing harm and inciting violence against specific groups of people.

No, it’s not. ‘Hate speech’, as the name would indicate, is any speech that supposedly indicates negative prejudices and hatred toward certain groups. If I say “black people in America are often poor criminals”, plenty of people would call that ‘hate speech’.

Depending on which definition you’re using, the speech has to be “abusive”, which, again, isn’t the same as wishing harm or inciting violence. If someone walked up and called me the N-Word, that’s abusive, by my lights.

Also, inciting violence against people is already illegal, and there’s plenty of other circumstances where people wish harm on others. That doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

>US profits off of hate speech.

Let me guess; those political Youtube videos and Facebook ads? You know the left makes those too, right? Look at Contrapoints...basically everything, I’m told. Not to mention the news for the past few years.

Ironic how you opened with “Are… are ya’ll really that dumb?” and then blindly repeated a bunch of NPC arguments. Poor ones.

Says “Are… are ya’ll really that dumb?” then immediately acts like there aren't laws against incitement to violence.

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch

Hate Speech is legal, should be legal, and shouldn’t be undermined by “durr hurr FREEDOM OF SPEECH NOT MEAN FREEDOM OF CONSEQUENCES” bullshit.

Die mad about it.

Hate speech is free speech if not everyone who hates Trump gets the boot as well

Free speech protects the most unlikable forms of speech by default. Banning speech you dont like means you do not actually support free speech. You only support "currently-acceptable speech"

Not technically true. Speech that intentionally incites violence isn't protected and in some cases is a valid defense against assault & battery charges.

Id say that a lot of what Nazis say fits under that. Though "Hate Speech" is too ill defined to be enforced and could quickly lead to a loss of rights for topics the government dosen't like. Which is why i like the current way better, you can say what you want, but in certain cases you'll be punished for inciting panic, and in others you'll make yourself vulnerable to retaliation because of what you said. So people don't loose rights, and Nazis still have to buy new shirts without milkshake residue on em.

Assault is a crime, so milkshaking or otherwise attacking people you call nazis is prosecutable, no matter what vile thing they say, unless they are eminently about to harm someone. And no, panic is not a free speech exemption.

Incitement to violence is such a narrow restriction. Unless they are saying "let's go harm x", you'll be hard pressed to get an incitement charge to stick. So technically, people can say almost any vile thing they want, and that ability is what the 1st amendment was enacted to protect. You dont need free speech to say something innocuous. It's the speech that gets people's blood boiling at you that needs protection.

That sounds great and all, but you're just factually wrong. Shouting fire in a crowded theater (to use an old example) is not protected under free speech because it incites panic. And I don't see an epidemic of people being sued for throwing milkshakes on Nazis, so there must be some truth to what i say.

Inciting intentional <<immediate>> physical harm is the only restriction on free speech, which is the only reason anyone tolerates the theatre example, not because of the panic, but because people could be hurt in their rush out the door. And you don't see an epidemic of people being sued because most tossers are anonymous d bags who wear masks, making it very hard to ID them, not because you said anything factual. Whenever they can be IDd, they are being prosecuted, some of them criminally.

You don't get to assault people for saying things you don't like, even if you think it's vile.

Nazi's in the US were irrelevant until people like you got it in their noggin that it was okay to assault them for their hate. And most people being called nazis nowadays aren't.

As much as I'd love to agree with you, I can't reconcile in my head the idea of both having the right to life and also allowing someone to encourage people to kill me and everyone like me. Yeah, there's no real way to implement it that would be safe in the long run, but i still very much believe that while you can say what you want, if you say that i deserve to die and burn along with all my friends, and then you go on to spread this view making it more acceptable and a possible future, i think it's understandable why I'd punch you.

Sure, but under current law, you would be prosecuted for assault before anyone would be prosecuted for saying they hate you and want you to die. Unless of course they were explicitly encouraging others to find and kill you.

Free speech was never meant to be clean and polite. It's meant to be hurtful, rude, vulgar, irreverent, hateful, derogatory, and messy. But it's not free speech if we only allow for the safe, proper kind.

Im not asking you to censor everything offensive. Im asking you to maybe not let people seriously advocate for literal genocide.

What specific context can you give me where someone is advocating “literal genocide” that is currently legal under the first amendment that you would like to become an exemption?

@Nestlé

jedimasterazeroth

You’re not paying for water. You’re paying for clean and treated water otherwise we all would be running to the bathroom all the time for diarrhea. Natural water is not clean or safe to drink. It has all sorts of materials, bacteria, parasites and other shit that will make you shit your pants, wish you were dead as your intestines do a topsie turvey, or actually kill you.

What you get from tap or in a bottle is treated water. It’s been through a process that removes the above mentioned and makes it clean and safe to drink. That, unfortunately, costs money to do. From the electricity to run the machinery to the chemicals used to kill off the bacteria and balance the pH of the water.

Countries without treatment plants or enough of them would kill to have the water we drink. And sadly that is happening in some places where clean water is becoming nonexistent.

But seriously, if you want free water; go right ahead and drink the water outside. No one but your own stomach will stop you. Not even rain water is clean. It’s cleaner than the river but still not clean and still needs to be treated for bacteria at least.

The only reason bottled water costs nothing in emergencies is because the company donating gets compensation for helping in a crisis. You don’t pay for it directly but you do indirectly through taxes.

“you aren’t paying to survive, you’re paying to survive”

As if the value of water were the problem here. Did ya ever think that maybe people shouldn’t hafta go without water because they can’t pay? Have you ever thought that jussstt maybe people’s lives are more important than their 50000% markup on water they treat in huge quantities?

jedimasterazeroth

Did you know there are ways to treat water yourself? Still costs money and some methods more so than what you pay for a bottle. Clean water isn’t free, that is the point.

You’re still welcome to drink the free dirty water though.

Yes, i understand capitalism and i get that you feel entitled to my money in exchange for something i need to live, but it’s my wild radical idea that people shouldn’t be able to actually fucking die just because they don’t have money.

I get it’s a wild idea, but maybe, possibly, people’s lives are worth more than money.

A socialist whining about entitlement-now I’ve seen everything. Because expecting the people and infrastructure necessary for clean drinking water to provide their own upkeep and sustenance while giving you the fruits of their labor for nothing in return is 100% not entitled, no siree.

You see, we live in this thing called a country, sometimes refered to as a community or society, and in it people specialize in certain things for the express purpose of making it so the others aren’t required to do that thing. and again, you taking money i don’t have isn’t a very good way to fund your greed. Yeah, stuff costs effort and investment, but I don’t have money to give you, so either way you get nothing. The difference is between whether you get nothing from me and do 100% of your normal work and i die, or you get nothing from me, do 100.1% of your normal work, and i live.

Societies exist for the express abd sole purpose of extending and improving the lives of the people in them, that’s why they’re there.

If someone asked you for a glass of water when they were at your house would you yell at them for being a freeloader and tell them to get their commie ass off your property? What if they asked for a gallon or two while their water was down? Would you demand they reimburse you? If your answer to these was no, then why does your answer change when you’re doing so through taxes? And if your answer to either was yes, you’re a horrible person and I don’t feel comfortable interacting with you.

You’re not asking for someone to do “you” a favour for no recompense. You’re asking for someone to provide everyone a service for no recompense. Give everyone free water, but you wont be paid for it. How do you expect anyone to agree to that arrangement? Unless you’re willing and able to provide something of comparable value (and in western countries, we generally use currency), you cannot rationally expect someone else to labour for your well being. You’re not being new or “radical”, you’re just spewing the same old tired rubbish communists have for decades that individuals do not have the right to be compensated for their labour. You’re nothing more than a bourjoix Marx, living alone and unemployed, complaining that your every want isnt being met for free because of greedy capitalists who demand payment for their labour. Labour is it’s own reward.

You’re right, it’s not the same as me asking a personal favor. It costs you even less because the cost is split between the entire taxpaying population.

I’m not even gonna touch the rest of what you said, given the fact that it’s stupid, selfish, and historically inaccurate.

Though i do wanna ask you something. How does your happy little narrative of me whining for not getting everything free hold up when im one of the people that would be paying for this system? If i just wanted free stuff I wouldn’t suggest making it go to taxes, considering the fact that I’d still be paying for it under that system.

I get that it makes you feel better to pretend that i just want free stuff, but it’s not the reality. I just care about other people more than i care about my money.

Yes, the fact human history has centered around the notion that people should be paid for their goods or services is inaccurate 🙄.

How are taxes to be collected if people are getting all their needs met for free? And if you dont have money for treated water, how are you paying taxes?

We already have charities and social safety nets to make sure people arent starving in the streets. Governments were never designed to nanny their citizens. Their primary directive has been to protect from outside forces and ensure the rule of law.

I mean, the government already provides for the cost of water during a crisis, but you’re proposing it do do indefinitely because, what, some imaginary number of theoretical people might be a little inconvenienced by the price? Even treated water isnt very expensive, so if you’re so hard pressed, hold off on that iPhone. Talk about being stupid and selfish.

No, that wasn’t the inaccurate part, the inaccurate part is you believing that humans don’t by nature help each other.

And i do have the money, this isn’t about what i want or me getting anything for free, this is about helping other people. It’s not that i can’t afford it, it’s that i dissagree with the fundamental notion that someone could not be deemed valuable enough to spare a couple dollars to support their health.

Charities are great, they are, but they’re flawed. They focus on one group that those who can afford to donate substantial amounts decide are worth it. The fundamental concept is great, but in practice it’s just the rich deciding who lives and who dies like always. Governments don’t have one single goal, they all have different goals. Governments are groups of people supported by trust and social constructs, the idea that they are somehow intrinsically biased against helping people is stupid. The only biases in government are those of the people who run it.

Yeah, i know it’s not expensive, that’s still not the point. And also how fucking dare you? How can you sit there looking at people who are struggling, who are trying so hard to get back to normal in a system that wants to keep them in poverty, how can you sit there and call them selfish? Because they spend what little they have to bring some semblances of happiness and normalcy into their lives? Do you not think of them as people? As real people with emotions and lives? Real people who need hope and happiness in their lives? Do you not think they deserve that, after all they’ve been through are you really going to ridicule them for trying to be happy for a single moment?

No, how fucking dare YOU? if someone is so badly off that they cant afford water, they sure as hell better not be wasting their money on the most expensive smart phone on the market and then expect other people, through government assistance or private charity, to supply them with their basic needs. There are perfectly suitable phones that cost maybe 50.00 you can use until you are financially stable.

And your whole gripe against charities comes off as completely ignorant. Being at the mercy of a private charity is no different from being at the mercy of a government assistance program. In fact, I prefer the private charity, because at least there is a human I can talk to and more leeway to meet my needs. When I was on government assistance, they overpaid me and then taxed me on the money they wanted paid back. They dont care about you, and even if someone in that bureaucracy did care, there’s so much yellow tape, they couldn’t do anything anyway outside of policy guidelines.

I never said people by nature dont want to help others, but it is cruel to expect them to donate their time and resources for free, perpetually. Government isnt the cure all you think it is, and comes with many unique problems if you allow the populace to become too dependent on it. I will always argue for private charity over government assistance any day, because I believe they do a better job of helping get people out of poverty.

My god, im not talking about very spesificaly buying the newest iPhone (you didn’t actually say it was new, could’ve been the oldest and cheepest model available) it’s more the sentiment that you carried with it. That if you’re struggling you’re a horrible person if you do anything other than claw your way out of poverty 24/7

Private charities may very well do a better job of getting people out of poverty, im sure they usually do in fact. The problem is that those charities aren’t for everyone. Take the salvation army for example, it’s great if you’re a conventionally accepted person that a typical evangelical would be fine with. But if you’re not they’re horrible to you. The problem isn’t that they don’t do a good job, the problem is that they’re only doing it for the people they like. I know that the government isn’t good, i know that it dosen’t care, but i trust the government more than i trust private rich people, at least the government has some attempt at self-regulation and equality. You don’t get that assurance with private citizens.

Any iPhone that isn’t already being artificially slowed down by apple is too expensive for someone who is having serious difficulty getting water or food. If you aren’t doing everything within your power to help yourself, you cannot in good faith call other people selfish or entitled for not helping you with your basic needs. Nobody is saying you have to burn yourself out trying to claw your way out of poverty, but nobody should be expected to pay for your food and water if your wasting your money on phones and other luxuries that you could either buy 2nd hand, or hold off on until you’re on your feet. That mentality breeds dependence, and is a huge reason why so many generations of families today are living on welfare. Sure, Sally Ann is a pretty bad place. I’ve heard plenty of horror stories about it, but the government is not morally neutral either. Pick your poison, I suppose, but the goal should be getting out of poverty, and government welfare, at least in North America, does a pretty poor job of it.

unaffiliatedpangolin

Leftist: “We need to put limits on free speech because of all the Nazis.”

Normal people: “No we need to protect free speech. The same freedom that lets them speak also protects your right to speak.”

Leftist: “I’m talking about Nazis they don’t have a right to say those things and we need to put a stop to it.”

Normal people: “Yeah, I understand what you’re saying but the unintended consequences will be the eventual erosion of your right to speak freely. Today it’s the so-called Nazis and then one day it will be you. You are undermining everybody’s rights in the future because you are uncomfortable right now.”

accidentallypatriotic-deactivat

This.

Also, let them speak. Let them show their evil for all to hear, so that good people can prove them wrong and decry their hatred. Hatred kept in the shadows grows faster. I want to know who around me holds those views.

Are... are ya'll really that dumb?

Silencing Nazis isn't an infringement on your freedom of speech. Why? Because it's not putting restrictions on *freedom of speech*, it's ENFORCING the law against *hate speech*, which in most developed countries, is illegal. US doesn't have it illegalized because the US is racist and can market off of it.

Why should hate speech be illegal?

Because hate speech is blatantly wishing harm and inciting violence against specific groups of people. You have zero right to harass someone. It is illegal to provoke someone into doing a violent act, as it states, "provocation is when a person is considered to have committed a criminal act partly because of a preceding set of events that might cause a reasonable person to lose self control." in wiki. Hate speech is a hate crime. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it is meant to be illegal so as to prevent people getting killed, or mass genocide happening for the umpteenth fucking time in the past 100 years alone! You have no right to go around saying "kill xyz people". It should not be legal. It should not be legal for you to go around demeaning and harassing innocent people and trying to get others to follow suit. Absolutely not.

Second of all, you absolute fuck nut, the nazis got into government because they were allowed to spew their fucking hate speech! It's infiltrating our government! Why do you think people like Donald Trump are voted to be president?! They take vulnerable people who feel like they have nothing and give them something to feel entitled over. They make primarily white people feel entitled to land, over your body, over your reproductive organs, over your sexuality, over your race, and over your religions. They've already been succeeding because they have a platform to recruit people with, which is how genocide happens. Which is how the holocaust happened. You think people looked at them and went, "Wow these guys are evil, we should stop them." NO! THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. 11 MILLION PEOPLE DIED.

I would rather give up my ability to partake in hate speech than see yet another person die. I would rather give up my ability to partake in hate speech than to see another nazi who hates women and poc and LGBT and etc be posted on fox news, CNN, or any form of social media as if they're just "old and traditional" or "a harmless conservative." That's what they want from you.

Now quit making excuses for them!

unaffiliatedpangolin

Your entire wall of text is already summarized by the third paragraph I wrote in the OP.

Much of your argument is based off logical fallacies as well, and can simply be discarded.

>other countries ban “hate speech”

An appeal to popularity also people go to jail over tweets. Which is kind of my point, people shouldn’t go to prison for fucking tweets.

>US profits off of hate speech.

Citation needed and even if it did that isn’t a reason to ban it. I doubt you are ok with “non-profit” hate speech so the amount of money generated is irrelevant even to your own point.

> It’s wishing harm and inciting violence.

Look at other countries hate speech laws and you will quickly find that it isn’t even that. In Canada you can be penalized for not respecting made up pronouns. Is that the same as inciting violence? No. So again the slippery slope I described in the OP is real which is why I made the OP.

Additionally you have a problem with Trump, do you really want his administration making the hate speech laws? Do you think those laws would be used to silence certain people? If you answered “yes, he would abuse those laws” then that’s the exact reason nobody under any administration should be able to make laws against “hate speech”. Because those laws give anyone in power the green light to abuse those laws.

So just like I described in the OP you want to give up your rights because you are uncomfortable in the moment. You want to cut out your own tongue because you fear someone else might say something unpleasant. You are literally the person I just described. Thank you for giving me a first hand example to show that this wasn’t an exaggeration or straw man of leftists.

Would you also give up your 4th amendment rights too? “Sure the cops can search me and confiscate my stuff if it helps put one Nazi in prison, what to I need civil rights for?” Would you give up your right to vote so that they couldn’t either? And, ironically, when you’ve eliminated all of your rights you’ll find that you’re probably describing the level of rights people had in Nazi Germany.

siryouarebeingmocked

> Because hate speech is blatantly wishing harm and inciting violence against specific groups of people.

No, it’s not. ‘Hate speech’, as the name would indicate, is any speech that supposedly indicates negative prejudices and hatred toward certain groups. If I say “black people in America are often poor criminals”, plenty of people would call that ‘hate speech’.

Depending on which definition you’re using, the speech has to be “abusive”, which, again, isn’t the same as wishing harm or inciting violence. If someone walked up and called me the N-Word, that’s abusive, by my lights.

Also, inciting violence against people is already illegal, and there’s plenty of other circumstances where people wish harm on others. That doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

>US profits off of hate speech.

Let me guess; those political Youtube videos and Facebook ads? You know the left makes those too, right? Look at Contrapoints...basically everything, I’m told. Not to mention the news for the past few years.

Ironic how you opened with “Are… are ya’ll really that dumb?” and then blindly repeated a bunch of NPC arguments. Poor ones.

Says “Are… are ya’ll really that dumb?” then immediately acts like there aren't laws against incitement to violence.

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch

Hate Speech is legal, should be legal, and shouldn’t be undermined by “durr hurr FREEDOM OF SPEECH NOT MEAN FREEDOM OF CONSEQUENCES” bullshit.

Die mad about it.

Hate speech is free speech if not everyone who hates Trump gets the boot as well

Free speech protects the most unlikable forms of speech by default. Banning speech you dont like means you do not actually support free speech. You only support "currently-acceptable speech"

Not technically true. Speech that intentionally incites violence isn't protected and in some cases is a valid defense against assault & battery charges.

Id say that a lot of what Nazis say fits under that. Though "Hate Speech" is too ill defined to be enforced and could quickly lead to a loss of rights for topics the government dosen't like. Which is why i like the current way better, you can say what you want, but in certain cases you'll be punished for inciting panic, and in others you'll make yourself vulnerable to retaliation because of what you said. So people don't loose rights, and Nazis still have to buy new shirts without milkshake residue on em.

Assault is a crime, so milkshaking or otherwise attacking people you call nazis is prosecutable, no matter what vile thing they say, unless they are eminently about to harm someone. And no, panic is not a free speech exemption.

Incitement to violence is such a narrow restriction. Unless they are saying "let's go harm x", you'll be hard pressed to get an incitement charge to stick. So technically, people can say almost any vile thing they want, and that ability is what the 1st amendment was enacted to protect. You dont need free speech to say something innocuous. It's the speech that gets people's blood boiling at you that needs protection.

That sounds great and all, but you're just factually wrong. Shouting fire in a crowded theater (to use an old example) is not protected under free speech because it incites panic. And I don't see an epidemic of people being sued for throwing milkshakes on Nazis, so there must be some truth to what i say.

Inciting intentional <<immediate>> physical harm is the only restriction on free speech, which is the only reason anyone tolerates the theatre example, not because of the panic, but because people could be hurt in their rush out the door. And you don't see an epidemic of people being sued because most tossers are anonymous d bags who wear masks, making it very hard to ID them, not because you said anything factual. Whenever they can be IDd, they are being prosecuted, some of them criminally.

You don't get to assault people for saying things you don't like, even if you think it's vile.

Nazi's in the US were irrelevant until people like you got it in their noggin that it was okay to assault them for their hate. And most people being called nazis nowadays aren't.

As much as I'd love to agree with you, I can't reconcile in my head the idea of both having the right to life and also allowing someone to encourage people to kill me and everyone like me. Yeah, there's no real way to implement it that would be safe in the long run, but i still very much believe that while you can say what you want, if you say that i deserve to die and burn along with all my friends, and then you go on to spread this view making it more acceptable and a possible future, i think it's understandable why I'd punch you.

Sure, but under current law, you would be prosecuted for assault before anyone would be prosecuted for saying they hate you and want you to die. Unless of course they were explicitly encouraging others to find and kill you.

Free speech was never meant to be clean and polite. It's meant to be hurtful, rude, vulgar, irreverent, hateful, derogatory, and messy. But it's not free speech if we only allow for the safe, proper kind.

whitepeopletwitter

Oh, racial generalizations are also bad if used vs white people. Finally, some decent equality.

Didn’t you reblog something about jokes that are insensitive are ok and being sensitive all the time is bad? Jus saying, stick to a narrative.

I’m fine with a good ole racey joke here and there, it’s the inconsistent outrage that gets me. I mean, if you support inconsistent outrage, you kinda dont have a narrative leg to stand on.

I hope you’ve enjoyed perusing my blog so far 😘

Yeah, im sure. You say that after being pointed out as being inconsistently outraged. Definitely everyone else’s fault, totally.

And not really. Sometimes i come across something and think you might not be that bad, but then you’re worse.

Pointing out one example of someone finally not being ok with a white person joke isnt inconsistent, because i still found humour in that white joke. But go off I guess…

I admire your tenacity at obsessing over my blog. Do you do this for every blog who disagrees with you, or am I especially 😊

Idk, seems a bit inconsistent. I’ve never heard anyone who shares your views defend jokes making fun of white cishet men, only say it’s racist/sexist/etc.

And naw. I do this with every blog. Not just the ones i dissagree with. If i end up on your blog I’ll just scroll through it for a while, mostly not saying anything tho.

I dont need to defend white/cis/male jokes because everyone else already does. It's the black/brown/gay/trans jokes that need defending because, for some reason, people think only those jokes cause harm (hint: they dont, they're just dumb jokes some people find funny).

Awe, well now I dont feel as special. But thanks for engaging with some of my posts. It's been quite the ride 👍

@Nestlé

jedimasterazeroth

You’re not paying for water. You’re paying for clean and treated water otherwise we all would be running to the bathroom all the time for diarrhea. Natural water is not clean or safe to drink. It has all sorts of materials, bacteria, parasites and other shit that will make you shit your pants, wish you were dead as your intestines do a topsie turvey, or actually kill you.

What you get from tap or in a bottle is treated water. It’s been through a process that removes the above mentioned and makes it clean and safe to drink. That, unfortunately, costs money to do. From the electricity to run the machinery to the chemicals used to kill off the bacteria and balance the pH of the water.

Countries without treatment plants or enough of them would kill to have the water we drink. And sadly that is happening in some places where clean water is becoming nonexistent.

But seriously, if you want free water; go right ahead and drink the water outside. No one but your own stomach will stop you. Not even rain water is clean. It’s cleaner than the river but still not clean and still needs to be treated for bacteria at least.

The only reason bottled water costs nothing in emergencies is because the company donating gets compensation for helping in a crisis. You don’t pay for it directly but you do indirectly through taxes.

“you aren’t paying to survive, you’re paying to survive”

As if the value of water were the problem here. Did ya ever think that maybe people shouldn’t hafta go without water because they can’t pay? Have you ever thought that jussstt maybe people’s lives are more important than their 50000% markup on water they treat in huge quantities?

jedimasterazeroth

Did you know there are ways to treat water yourself? Still costs money and some methods more so than what you pay for a bottle. Clean water isn’t free, that is the point.

You’re still welcome to drink the free dirty water though.

Yes, i understand capitalism and i get that you feel entitled to my money in exchange for something i need to live, but it’s my wild radical idea that people shouldn’t be able to actually fucking die just because they don’t have money.

I get it’s a wild idea, but maybe, possibly, people’s lives are worth more than money.

A socialist whining about entitlement-now I’ve seen everything. Because expecting the people and infrastructure necessary for clean drinking water to provide their own upkeep and sustenance while giving you the fruits of their labor for nothing in return is 100% not entitled, no siree.

You see, we live in this thing called a country, sometimes refered to as a community or society, and in it people specialize in certain things for the express purpose of making it so the others aren’t required to do that thing. and again, you taking money i don’t have isn’t a very good way to fund your greed. Yeah, stuff costs effort and investment, but I don’t have money to give you, so either way you get nothing. The difference is between whether you get nothing from me and do 100% of your normal work and i die, or you get nothing from me, do 100.1% of your normal work, and i live.

Societies exist for the express abd sole purpose of extending and improving the lives of the people in them, that’s why they’re there.

If someone asked you for a glass of water when they were at your house would you yell at them for being a freeloader and tell them to get their commie ass off your property? What if they asked for a gallon or two while their water was down? Would you demand they reimburse you? If your answer to these was no, then why does your answer change when you’re doing so through taxes? And if your answer to either was yes, you’re a horrible person and I don’t feel comfortable interacting with you.

You’re not asking for someone to do “you” a favour for no recompense. You’re asking for someone to provide everyone a service for no recompense. Give everyone free water, but you wont be paid for it. How do you expect anyone to agree to that arrangement? Unless you’re willing and able to provide something of comparable value (and in western countries, we generally use currency), you cannot rationally expect someone else to labour for your well being. You’re not being new or “radical”, you’re just spewing the same old tired rubbish communists have for decades that individuals do not have the right to be compensated for their labour. You’re nothing more than a bourjoix Marx, living alone and unemployed, complaining that your every want isnt being met for free because of greedy capitalists who demand payment for their labour. Labour is it’s own reward.

You’re right, it’s not the same as me asking a personal favor. It costs you even less because the cost is split between the entire taxpaying population.

I’m not even gonna touch the rest of what you said, given the fact that it’s stupid, selfish, and historically inaccurate.

Though i do wanna ask you something. How does your happy little narrative of me whining for not getting everything free hold up when im one of the people that would be paying for this system? If i just wanted free stuff I wouldn’t suggest making it go to taxes, considering the fact that I’d still be paying for it under that system.

I get that it makes you feel better to pretend that i just want free stuff, but it’s not the reality. I just care about other people more than i care about my money.

Yes, the fact human history has centered around the notion that people should be paid for their goods or services is inaccurate 🙄.

How are taxes to be collected if people are getting all their needs met for free? And if you dont have money for treated water, how are you paying taxes?

We already have charities and social safety nets to make sure people arent starving in the streets. Governments were never designed to nanny their citizens. Their primary directive has been to protect from outside forces and ensure the rule of law.

I mean, the government already provides for the cost of water during a crisis, but you’re proposing it do do indefinitely because, what, some imaginary number of theoretical people might be a little inconvenienced by the price? Even treated water isnt very expensive, so if you’re so hard pressed, hold off on that iPhone. Talk about being stupid and selfish.

No, that wasn’t the inaccurate part, the inaccurate part is you believing that humans don’t by nature help each other.

And i do have the money, this isn’t about what i want or me getting anything for free, this is about helping other people. It’s not that i can’t afford it, it’s that i dissagree with the fundamental notion that someone could not be deemed valuable enough to spare a couple dollars to support their health.

Charities are great, they are, but they’re flawed. They focus on one group that those who can afford to donate substantial amounts decide are worth it. The fundamental concept is great, but in practice it’s just the rich deciding who lives and who dies like always. Governments don’t have one single goal, they all have different goals. Governments are groups of people supported by trust and social constructs, the idea that they are somehow intrinsically biased against helping people is stupid. The only biases in government are those of the people who run it.

Yeah, i know it’s not expensive, that’s still not the point. And also how fucking dare you? How can you sit there looking at people who are struggling, who are trying so hard to get back to normal in a system that wants to keep them in poverty, how can you sit there and call them selfish? Because they spend what little they have to bring some semblances of happiness and normalcy into their lives? Do you not think of them as people? As real people with emotions and lives? Real people who need hope and happiness in their lives? Do you not think they deserve that, after all they’ve been through are you really going to ridicule them for trying to be happy for a single moment?

No, how fucking dare YOU? if someone is so badly off that they cant afford water, they sure as hell better not be wasting their money on the most expensive smart phone on the market and then expect other people, through government assistance or private charity, to supply them with their basic needs. There are perfectly suitable phones that cost maybe 50.00 you can use until you are financially stable.

And your whole gripe against charities comes off as completely ignorant. Being at the mercy of a private charity is no different from being at the mercy of a government assistance program. In fact, I prefer the private charity, because at least there is a human I can talk to and more leeway to meet my needs. When I was on government assistance, they overpaid me and then taxed me on the money they wanted paid back. They dont care about you, and even if someone in that bureaucracy did care, there's so much yellow tape, they couldn't do anything anyway outside of policy guidelines.

I never said people by nature dont want to help others, but it is cruel to expect them to donate their time and resources for free, perpetually. Government isnt the cure all you think it is, and comes with many unique problems if you allow the populace to become too dependent on it. I will always argue for private charity over government assistance any day, because I believe they do a better job of helping get people out of poverty.

whitepeopletwitter

Oh, racial generalizations are also bad if used vs white people. Finally, some decent equality.

Didn’t you reblog something about jokes that are insensitive are ok and being sensitive all the time is bad? Jus saying, stick to a narrative.

I’m fine with a good ole racey joke here and there, it’s the inconsistent outrage that gets me. I mean, if you support inconsistent outrage, you kinda dont have a narrative leg to stand on.

I hope you’ve enjoyed perusing my blog so far 😘

Yeah, im sure. You say that after being pointed out as being inconsistently outraged. Definitely everyone else’s fault, totally.

And not really. Sometimes i come across something and think you might not be that bad, but then you’re worse.

Pointing out one example of someone finally not being ok with a white person joke isnt inconsistent, because i still found humour in that white joke. But go off I guess...

I admire your tenacity at obsessing over my blog. Do you do this for every blog who disagrees with you, or am I especially 😊

unaffiliatedpangolin

Leftist: “We need to put limits on free speech because of all the Nazis.”

Normal people: “No we need to protect free speech. The same freedom that lets them speak also protects your right to speak.”

Leftist: “I’m talking about Nazis they don’t have a right to say those things and we need to put a stop to it.”

Normal people: “Yeah, I understand what you’re saying but the unintended consequences will be the eventual erosion of your right to speak freely. Today it’s the so-called Nazis and then one day it will be you. You are undermining everybody’s rights in the future because you are uncomfortable right now.”

accidentallypatriotic-deactivat

This.

Also, let them speak. Let them show their evil for all to hear, so that good people can prove them wrong and decry their hatred. Hatred kept in the shadows grows faster. I want to know who around me holds those views.

Are... are ya'll really that dumb?

Silencing Nazis isn't an infringement on your freedom of speech. Why? Because it's not putting restrictions on *freedom of speech*, it's ENFORCING the law against *hate speech*, which in most developed countries, is illegal. US doesn't have it illegalized because the US is racist and can market off of it.

Why should hate speech be illegal?

Because hate speech is blatantly wishing harm and inciting violence against specific groups of people. You have zero right to harass someone. It is illegal to provoke someone into doing a violent act, as it states, "provocation is when a person is considered to have committed a criminal act partly because of a preceding set of events that might cause a reasonable person to lose self control." in wiki. Hate speech is a hate crime. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it is meant to be illegal so as to prevent people getting killed, or mass genocide happening for the umpteenth fucking time in the past 100 years alone! You have no right to go around saying "kill xyz people". It should not be legal. It should not be legal for you to go around demeaning and harassing innocent people and trying to get others to follow suit. Absolutely not.

Second of all, you absolute fuck nut, the nazis got into government because they were allowed to spew their fucking hate speech! It's infiltrating our government! Why do you think people like Donald Trump are voted to be president?! They take vulnerable people who feel like they have nothing and give them something to feel entitled over. They make primarily white people feel entitled to land, over your body, over your reproductive organs, over your sexuality, over your race, and over your religions. They've already been succeeding because they have a platform to recruit people with, which is how genocide happens. Which is how the holocaust happened. You think people looked at them and went, "Wow these guys are evil, we should stop them." NO! THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. 11 MILLION PEOPLE DIED.

I would rather give up my ability to partake in hate speech than see yet another person die. I would rather give up my ability to partake in hate speech than to see another nazi who hates women and poc and LGBT and etc be posted on fox news, CNN, or any form of social media as if they're just "old and traditional" or "a harmless conservative." That's what they want from you.

Now quit making excuses for them!

unaffiliatedpangolin

Your entire wall of text is already summarized by the third paragraph I wrote in the OP.

Much of your argument is based off logical fallacies as well, and can simply be discarded.

>other countries ban “hate speech”

An appeal to popularity also people go to jail over tweets. Which is kind of my point, people shouldn’t go to prison for fucking tweets.

>US profits off of hate speech.

Citation needed and even if it did that isn’t a reason to ban it. I doubt you are ok with “non-profit” hate speech so the amount of money generated is irrelevant even to your own point.

> It’s wishing harm and inciting violence.

Look at other countries hate speech laws and you will quickly find that it isn’t even that. In Canada you can be penalized for not respecting made up pronouns. Is that the same as inciting violence? No. So again the slippery slope I described in the OP is real which is why I made the OP.

Additionally you have a problem with Trump, do you really want his administration making the hate speech laws? Do you think those laws would be used to silence certain people? If you answered “yes, he would abuse those laws” then that’s the exact reason nobody under any administration should be able to make laws against “hate speech”. Because those laws give anyone in power the green light to abuse those laws.

So just like I described in the OP you want to give up your rights because you are uncomfortable in the moment. You want to cut out your own tongue because you fear someone else might say something unpleasant. You are literally the person I just described. Thank you for giving me a first hand example to show that this wasn’t an exaggeration or straw man of leftists.

Would you also give up your 4th amendment rights too? “Sure the cops can search me and confiscate my stuff if it helps put one Nazi in prison, what to I need civil rights for?” Would you give up your right to vote so that they couldn’t either? And, ironically, when you’ve eliminated all of your rights you’ll find that you’re probably describing the level of rights people had in Nazi Germany.

siryouarebeingmocked

> Because hate speech is blatantly wishing harm and inciting violence against specific groups of people.

No, it’s not. ‘Hate speech’, as the name would indicate, is any speech that supposedly indicates negative prejudices and hatred toward certain groups. If I say “black people in America are often poor criminals”, plenty of people would call that ‘hate speech’.

Depending on which definition you’re using, the speech has to be “abusive”, which, again, isn’t the same as wishing harm or inciting violence. If someone walked up and called me the N-Word, that’s abusive, by my lights.

Also, inciting violence against people is already illegal, and there’s plenty of other circumstances where people wish harm on others. That doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

>US profits off of hate speech.

Let me guess; those political Youtube videos and Facebook ads? You know the left makes those too, right? Look at Contrapoints...basically everything, I’m told. Not to mention the news for the past few years.

Ironic how you opened with “Are… are ya’ll really that dumb?” and then blindly repeated a bunch of NPC arguments. Poor ones.

Says “Are… are ya’ll really that dumb?” then immediately acts like there aren't laws against incitement to violence.

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch

Hate Speech is legal, should be legal, and shouldn’t be undermined by “durr hurr FREEDOM OF SPEECH NOT MEAN FREEDOM OF CONSEQUENCES” bullshit.

Die mad about it.

Hate speech is free speech if not everyone who hates Trump gets the boot as well

Free speech protects the most unlikable forms of speech by default. Banning speech you dont like means you do not actually support free speech. You only support "currently-acceptable speech"

Not technically true. Speech that intentionally incites violence isn't protected and in some cases is a valid defense against assault & battery charges.

Id say that a lot of what Nazis say fits under that. Though "Hate Speech" is too ill defined to be enforced and could quickly lead to a loss of rights for topics the government dosen't like. Which is why i like the current way better, you can say what you want, but in certain cases you'll be punished for inciting panic, and in others you'll make yourself vulnerable to retaliation because of what you said. So people don't loose rights, and Nazis still have to buy new shirts without milkshake residue on em.

Assault is a crime, so milkshaking or otherwise attacking people you call nazis is prosecutable, no matter what vile thing they say, unless they are eminently about to harm someone. And no, panic is not a free speech exemption.

Incitement to violence is such a narrow restriction. Unless they are saying "let's go harm x", you'll be hard pressed to get an incitement charge to stick. So technically, people can say almost any vile thing they want, and that ability is what the 1st amendment was enacted to protect. You dont need free speech to say something innocuous. It's the speech that gets people's blood boiling at you that needs protection.

That sounds great and all, but you're just factually wrong. Shouting fire in a crowded theater (to use an old example) is not protected under free speech because it incites panic. And I don't see an epidemic of people being sued for throwing milkshakes on Nazis, so there must be some truth to what i say.

Inciting intentional <<immediate>> physical harm is the only restriction on free speech, which is the only reason anyone tolerates the theatre example, not because of the panic, but because people could be hurt in their rush out the door. And you don't see an epidemic of people being sued because most tossers are anonymous d bags who wear masks, making it very hard to ID them, not because you said anything factual. Whenever they can be IDd, they are being prosecuted, some of them criminally.

You don't get to assault people for saying things you don't like, even if you think it's vile.

Nazi's in the US were irrelevant until people like you got it in their noggin that it was okay to assault them for their hate. And most people being called nazis nowadays aren't.

whitepeopletwitter

Oh, racial generalizations are also bad if used vs white people. Finally, some decent equality.

Didn’t you reblog something about jokes that are insensitive are ok and being sensitive all the time is bad? Jus saying, stick to a narrative.

I'm fine with a good ole racey joke here and there, it's the inconsistent outrage that gets me. I mean, if you support inconsistent outrage, you kinda dont have a narrative leg to stand on.

I hope you've enjoyed perusing my blog so far 😘

whitepeopletwitter

White supremacy isnt the only (or even most common) known reason mass shootings happen, but go off I guess.

And mental illness isn’t the reason it happens in nearly any case. That’s just a lie made up to make mentally healthy people feel better by saying mass murderers aren’t like them, they’re one of those mentally ill, nothing like us, WE could never do such a thing, anyone who does MUST secretly be one of THEM

At least we agree bad people exist, regardless of their purported mental health.

@Nestlé

jedimasterazeroth

You’re not paying for water. You’re paying for clean and treated water otherwise we all would be running to the bathroom all the time for diarrhea. Natural water is not clean or safe to drink. It has all sorts of materials, bacteria, parasites and other shit that will make you shit your pants, wish you were dead as your intestines do a topsie turvey, or actually kill you.

What you get from tap or in a bottle is treated water. It’s been through a process that removes the above mentioned and makes it clean and safe to drink. That, unfortunately, costs money to do. From the electricity to run the machinery to the chemicals used to kill off the bacteria and balance the pH of the water.

Countries without treatment plants or enough of them would kill to have the water we drink. And sadly that is happening in some places where clean water is becoming nonexistent.

But seriously, if you want free water; go right ahead and drink the water outside. No one but your own stomach will stop you. Not even rain water is clean. It’s cleaner than the river but still not clean and still needs to be treated for bacteria at least.

The only reason bottled water costs nothing in emergencies is because the company donating gets compensation for helping in a crisis. You don’t pay for it directly but you do indirectly through taxes.

“you aren’t paying to survive, you’re paying to survive”

As if the value of water were the problem here. Did ya ever think that maybe people shouldn’t hafta go without water because they can’t pay? Have you ever thought that jussstt maybe people’s lives are more important than their 50000% markup on water they treat in huge quantities?

jedimasterazeroth

Did you know there are ways to treat water yourself? Still costs money and some methods more so than what you pay for a bottle. Clean water isn’t free, that is the point.

You’re still welcome to drink the free dirty water though.

Yes, i understand capitalism and i get that you feel entitled to my money in exchange for something i need to live, but it’s my wild radical idea that people shouldn’t be able to actually fucking die just because they don’t have money.

I get it’s a wild idea, but maybe, possibly, people’s lives are worth more than money.

A socialist whining about entitlement-now I’ve seen everything. Because expecting the people and infrastructure necessary for clean drinking water to provide their own upkeep and sustenance while giving you the fruits of their labor for nothing in return is 100% not entitled, no siree.

You see, we live in this thing called a country, sometimes refered to as a community or society, and in it people specialize in certain things for the express purpose of making it so the others aren’t required to do that thing. and again, you taking money i don’t have isn’t a very good way to fund your greed. Yeah, stuff costs effort and investment, but I don’t have money to give you, so either way you get nothing. The difference is between whether you get nothing from me and do 100% of your normal work and i die, or you get nothing from me, do 100.1% of your normal work, and i live.

Societies exist for the express abd sole purpose of extending and improving the lives of the people in them, that’s why they’re there.

If someone asked you for a glass of water when they were at your house would you yell at them for being a freeloader and tell them to get their commie ass off your property? What if they asked for a gallon or two while their water was down? Would you demand they reimburse you? If your answer to these was no, then why does your answer change when you’re doing so through taxes? And if your answer to either was yes, you’re a horrible person and I don’t feel comfortable interacting with you.

You’re not asking for someone to do “you” a favour for no recompense. You’re asking for someone to provide everyone a service for no recompense. Give everyone free water, but you wont be paid for it. How do you expect anyone to agree to that arrangement? Unless you’re willing and able to provide something of comparable value (and in western countries, we generally use currency), you cannot rationally expect someone else to labour for your well being. You’re not being new or “radical”, you’re just spewing the same old tired rubbish communists have for decades that individuals do not have the right to be compensated for their labour. You’re nothing more than a bourjoix Marx, living alone and unemployed, complaining that your every want isnt being met for free because of greedy capitalists who demand payment for their labour. Labour is it’s own reward.

You’re right, it’s not the same as me asking a personal favor. It costs you even less because the cost is split between the entire taxpaying population.

I’m not even gonna touch the rest of what you said, given the fact that it’s stupid, selfish, and historically inaccurate.

Though i do wanna ask you something. How does your happy little narrative of me whining for not getting everything free hold up when im one of the people that would be paying for this system? If i just wanted free stuff I wouldn’t suggest making it go to taxes, considering the fact that I’d still be paying for it under that system.

I get that it makes you feel better to pretend that i just want free stuff, but it’s not the reality. I just care about other people more than i care about my money.

Yes, the fact human history has centered around the notion that people should be paid for their goods or services is inaccurate 🙄.

How are taxes to be collected if people are getting all their needs met for free? And if you dont have money for treated water, how are you paying taxes?

We already have charities and social safety nets to make sure people arent starving in the streets. Governments were never designed to nanny their citizens. Their primary directive has been to protect from outside forces and ensure the rule of law.

I mean, the government already provides for the cost of water during a crisis, but you're proposing it do do indefinitely because, what, some imaginary number of theoretical people might be a little inconvenienced by the price? Even treated water isnt very expensive, so if you're so hard pressed, hold off on that iPhone. Talk about being stupid and selfish.

unaffiliatedpangolin

Leftist: “We need to put limits on free speech because of all the Nazis.”

Normal people: “No we need to protect free speech. The same freedom that lets them speak also protects your right to speak.”

Leftist: “I’m talking about Nazis they don’t have a right to say those things and we need to put a stop to it.”

Normal people: “Yeah, I understand what you’re saying but the unintended consequences will be the eventual erosion of your right to speak freely. Today it’s the so-called Nazis and then one day it will be you. You are undermining everybody’s rights in the future because you are uncomfortable right now.”

accidentallypatriotic-deactivat

This.

Also, let them speak. Let them show their evil for all to hear, so that good people can prove them wrong and decry their hatred. Hatred kept in the shadows grows faster. I want to know who around me holds those views.

Are... are ya'll really that dumb?

Silencing Nazis isn't an infringement on your freedom of speech. Why? Because it's not putting restrictions on *freedom of speech*, it's ENFORCING the law against *hate speech*, which in most developed countries, is illegal. US doesn't have it illegalized because the US is racist and can market off of it.

Why should hate speech be illegal?

Because hate speech is blatantly wishing harm and inciting violence against specific groups of people. You have zero right to harass someone. It is illegal to provoke someone into doing a violent act, as it states, "provocation is when a person is considered to have committed a criminal act partly because of a preceding set of events that might cause a reasonable person to lose self control." in wiki. Hate speech is a hate crime. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it is meant to be illegal so as to prevent people getting killed, or mass genocide happening for the umpteenth fucking time in the past 100 years alone! You have no right to go around saying "kill xyz people". It should not be legal. It should not be legal for you to go around demeaning and harassing innocent people and trying to get others to follow suit. Absolutely not.

Second of all, you absolute fuck nut, the nazis got into government because they were allowed to spew their fucking hate speech! It's infiltrating our government! Why do you think people like Donald Trump are voted to be president?! They take vulnerable people who feel like they have nothing and give them something to feel entitled over. They make primarily white people feel entitled to land, over your body, over your reproductive organs, over your sexuality, over your race, and over your religions. They've already been succeeding because they have a platform to recruit people with, which is how genocide happens. Which is how the holocaust happened. You think people looked at them and went, "Wow these guys are evil, we should stop them." NO! THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. 11 MILLION PEOPLE DIED.

I would rather give up my ability to partake in hate speech than see yet another person die. I would rather give up my ability to partake in hate speech than to see another nazi who hates women and poc and LGBT and etc be posted on fox news, CNN, or any form of social media as if they're just "old and traditional" or "a harmless conservative." That's what they want from you.

Now quit making excuses for them!

unaffiliatedpangolin

Your entire wall of text is already summarized by the third paragraph I wrote in the OP.

Much of your argument is based off logical fallacies as well, and can simply be discarded.

>other countries ban “hate speech”

An appeal to popularity also people go to jail over tweets. Which is kind of my point, people shouldn’t go to prison for fucking tweets.

>US profits off of hate speech.

Citation needed and even if it did that isn’t a reason to ban it. I doubt you are ok with “non-profit” hate speech so the amount of money generated is irrelevant even to your own point.

> It’s wishing harm and inciting violence.

Look at other countries hate speech laws and you will quickly find that it isn’t even that. In Canada you can be penalized for not respecting made up pronouns. Is that the same as inciting violence? No. So again the slippery slope I described in the OP is real which is why I made the OP.

Additionally you have a problem with Trump, do you really want his administration making the hate speech laws? Do you think those laws would be used to silence certain people? If you answered “yes, he would abuse those laws” then that’s the exact reason nobody under any administration should be able to make laws against “hate speech”. Because those laws give anyone in power the green light to abuse those laws.

So just like I described in the OP you want to give up your rights because you are uncomfortable in the moment. You want to cut out your own tongue because you fear someone else might say something unpleasant. You are literally the person I just described. Thank you for giving me a first hand example to show that this wasn’t an exaggeration or straw man of leftists.

Would you also give up your 4th amendment rights too? “Sure the cops can search me and confiscate my stuff if it helps put one Nazi in prison, what to I need civil rights for?” Would you give up your right to vote so that they couldn’t either? And, ironically, when you’ve eliminated all of your rights you’ll find that you’re probably describing the level of rights people had in Nazi Germany.

siryouarebeingmocked

> Because hate speech is blatantly wishing harm and inciting violence against specific groups of people.

No, it’s not. ‘Hate speech’, as the name would indicate, is any speech that supposedly indicates negative prejudices and hatred toward certain groups. If I say “black people in America are often poor criminals”, plenty of people would call that ‘hate speech’.

Depending on which definition you’re using, the speech has to be “abusive”, which, again, isn’t the same as wishing harm or inciting violence. If someone walked up and called me the N-Word, that’s abusive, by my lights.

Also, inciting violence against people is already illegal, and there’s plenty of other circumstances where people wish harm on others. That doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

>US profits off of hate speech.

Let me guess; those political Youtube videos and Facebook ads? You know the left makes those too, right? Look at Contrapoints...basically everything, I’m told. Not to mention the news for the past few years.

Ironic how you opened with “Are… are ya’ll really that dumb?” and then blindly repeated a bunch of NPC arguments. Poor ones.

Says “Are… are ya’ll really that dumb?” then immediately acts like there aren't laws against incitement to violence.

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch

Hate Speech is legal, should be legal, and shouldn’t be undermined by “durr hurr FREEDOM OF SPEECH NOT MEAN FREEDOM OF CONSEQUENCES” bullshit.

Die mad about it.

Hate speech is free speech if not everyone who hates Trump gets the boot as well

Free speech protects the most unlikable forms of speech by default. Banning speech you dont like means you do not actually support free speech. You only support "currently-acceptable speech"

Not technically true. Speech that intentionally incites violence isn't protected and in some cases is a valid defense against assault & battery charges.

Id say that a lot of what Nazis say fits under that. Though "Hate Speech" is too ill defined to be enforced and could quickly lead to a loss of rights for topics the government dosen't like. Which is why i like the current way better, you can say what you want, but in certain cases you'll be punished for inciting panic, and in others you'll make yourself vulnerable to retaliation because of what you said. So people don't loose rights, and Nazis still have to buy new shirts without milkshake residue on em.

Assault is a crime, so milkshaking or otherwise attacking people you call nazis is prosecutable, no matter what vile thing they say, unless they are eminently about to harm someone. And no, panic is not a free speech exemption.

Incitement to violence is such a narrow restriction. Unless they are saying "let's go harm x", you'll be hard pressed to get an incitement charge to stick. So technically, people can say almost any vile thing they want, and that ability is what the 1st amendment was enacted to protect. You dont need free speech to say something innocuous. It's the speech that gets people's blood boiling at you that needs protection.

The Stuff @egghead327 - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag