The problem with free speech

You are a retard, because all you do here is promote this video, and even then, not so effective - considering that you do not present what's in it, or why do you think it's wrong.

yeah well many people will consider "ges da jooz" or "Hitler did nothing wrong" or "around black never relax" an insult

did you forget to use your vpn?

ALSO: assault is illegal and so are threats. it has nothing to do if they like what i say they have no right to stop me

So if your lefty media lies and people start harassing those faggots and niggers it's completely fine. Free speech isn't freedom from consequences!

what about calling leftists "retards"? that a fucking insult, man.

freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences

those are just memes and trolls

still protected

>ges da jooz
is a threat and should not be considered as ok speech

yeah assaults are illegal, now go to a biker bar and say to some guy that his wife sucks mad dick

turn your meme flag off

youtu.be/spnACWU5XjY?t=1000

>what use are these flyers when zionism has a whole nation and two continents supporting it

oy vey...

oh so becouse its "ironic" i need to just stand there and take that shit?
>ITS A PRANK BRO

>consequences != threats

you can just ignor them like an adult

You're going to stand there and take it like a little bitch or else, faggot.

Attached: 1547485307615.jpg (939x1024, 125K)

Lefties are pussies
I'll say what i like and kick their teeth in if they try shit.
Faggot

dont start something you cant finish, hitler could tell you that

if(theirNarative != ourNarative){

executeShutItDown();

}

Attached: jigle billy.jpg (200x200, 9K)

you could just not say that shit

Do what you want. Just don't expect them to stop trolling you. Otherwise do what everybody would do, ignoring it.

...

he started a war
calling some one a idiot is not the same thing i could
but you have no right to force me not to

Niggers could just stop being niggers.

oh so starting wars and words have nothing to do with each other? i think you underestimate words. could it be that words dont man shit to you?
words are a serious thing my friend. saying "Russia is Lebensraum" has consequences

saying blacks have low IQ has consequences.

everything has consequences

Denying the truth has consequences.

and being a violent thug who bullies other in to silence has consequences

oh and all those other examples are just of people acting like dick head rather then grown adults

It’s essential that we protect everyone’s freedom of speech.
The subtext of this statement reads: “even if they are a neo-nazi,” or “even if they support policies or forms of speech that put me in danger.” The individuals in the far-right, or the “alt-right”, also cite their right to free speech when they claim that the West is fighting a war against Islam (as Steve Bannon has), or that we need to rid America of all the foreigners (as Richard Spencer has), or that date rape and rape culture are non-existent (as Milo Yiannopoulos and Mike Cernovich have). If it becomes normal enough to say that Islam is trying to destroy the West, then why should we be upset when someone attacks a Muslim person praying in public? If it is normal and acceptable to discuss the white man’s claim to this country, then why should we be upset when our neighborhood association creates housing restrictions for immigrants from Mexico or China, or when ICE shows up to take them to a detention center? If we accept the denial of different forms of rape and sexual assault as legitimate positions, then who’s to judge whether anyone can be culpable for assault, or whether it was just “boys being boys”? Or consider the less obvious implications of the common insults of these alt-right figures. Paul Joseph Watson, for one, frequently refers to demonstrators as “autistic children” and “retards,” while Gavin McInnes refers to the left as “mentally ill perverts.” What does this say about people who are physically or mentally different? That they are less than human. These contain implicit declarations that people with these differences have no platform to speak or be seen, that they ought to be excluded and put away.

Speech is not neutral. It exists in a historical context of violence. Discourse shapes the way we frame problems. It influences the way we act in the world we share together. Are deportation, exclusion, and sexual assault forms of violence? It depends on the discourse that frames them, be they legal or social. Just as the rules of a card game change the way you use the same cards, the way you speak and conceive of things changes the way you live your life. Speaking and acting are irreversibly intertwined and cannot be isolated from one-another.

This is not true, at least from my viewpoint.

To me freedom of speech should represent the ability to say anything you want, including unpopular things, without being censored. This does not arise from the assumption that I'm right or that my opinion deserves to be heard, but that in depriving people their ability to do that you open up a can of worms to which corporations and governments can silence valid criticism and dissent.

I see that you're a commie. With the rescindence of freedom of speech, your political position can not only become censored, but potentially illegal. This can apply to anyone and anything potentially damaging, left, right, and center.

In my opinion the freedom of speech allows discourse to be had between opposing viewpoints and for otherwise obscure or repressed ideas to be heard. By being able to debate directly with somebody of an opposing viewpoint, you can see the logical flaws of your own position and develop a better viewpoint for it. But when you censor and completely repress dissenting opinions in public space, see everyone outside of Jow Forums for right wing ideas, and Jow Forums for left wing ideas - you create echochambers in which glaringly obvious untruths can snowball into radicalization due to a lack of discourse between people.

So not only is getting rid of freedom of speech giving the powers that be a free pass to censor and crush dissent, but it also prevents people of opposing ideas from conversing and learning from each other and causing radicalization.

No one cares what (((Meme flags))) have to say.

When feminists lie about date rape culture and get innocent people convicted of crimes without evidence, then hey guess what. There will be consequences.

When you spout off a bunch of low IQ bullshit, faggot talking points which necessarily excludes getting along peacefully then guess what?

Consequences, nigger.

>It’s essential that we protect everyone’s freedom of speech.
and talking about how much you hate others is still protected

this is a right also give to muslims, that is why they can talk publicly about how they feel about the gays and women
> or when ICE shows up to take them to a detention center
you have nothing to fear if you have the proper documentation for your citizenship

>mentally ill perverts.
yes name calling is allowed
and considering who we ar talking about calling them mentally ill and perverts is a statement of fact
also most of the demonstrators were and are white

I finished watching it, i will try to summarize
1. free speech doesn't really exist within society so its stupid to argue for or accept arguments for it from a dogmatic perspective
2. there is no such thing as apolitical, and so anyone arguing for free speech is simply attempting to hide behind 'free speech' as a sort of virtue shield while they try to control the narrative
3. as long as there are people who feel afraid about things what you say has consequences in their actions and if you dont consider this it not only makes you a dick but could result in unforeseen behavior (which presumably might not be desirable for you)

Overall the video is not 'against' free speech, its pointing out the problems with the way the concept is handled.

An interesting video that has three stages. the intro which is kind of boring, the middle point which is a critique of a movie that is interesting and also some interesting ranting, and then a personal story which almost made me close the video but i stuck through it, now determined to watch the whole thing, and though i think his choice in including it probably harmed the effectiveness of the video he did sufficiently turn it into a point at the end instead of simply taking the opportunity to talk about himself like i thought he was doing.

nigga, antifa is not in government, i cannot possibly censor you, i can fight you, but i cant censor you.

>So not only is getting rid of freedom of speech giving the powers that be a free pass to censor and crush dissent, but it also prevents people of opposing ideas from conversing and learning from each other and causing radicalization.

there is a minimum threshold to be had when you engage in a conversation.

>Speech is not neutral
does not mater if it is, so long as every one has the same right to speak.

>nigga, antifa is not in government, i cannot possibly censor you, i can fight you, but i cant censor you.
you can and do though violence
stop hiding behind the "only the gubbermant can censor" argument.

Who decides what ideas have consequences? If an idea can propagate on its own by people who find it reasonable, why is it incorrect and should be illegal? You of all people should know you can't kill an idea. People believe what they believe for what they think are logical reasons, which is why free speech and discourse is essential for debating with those ideas that are wrong or supplementing them with better ones.

To completely repress ideas does not reduce their validity to these people, it actually does nothing. The Chinese repressing the Tienanmen Massacre didn't make it suddenly not happen or the Chinese people not conscious of it, or the "consequences" of the banned thought not exist. The censorship represents nothing but an exercise of power against what is perceived as a dangerous idea that the Chinese government could not reasonably address, because of its implications.

thins whole "freedom of speech" thing is bullshit. Fred Hampton used freespeech, he did nothing but that, guess what, he was assassinated by the police, yeah, just for that.

at the end of the day it all means nothing becouse rights means nothing, if a person is truly free there is nobody above his to grant him any rights.

The KKK wasn't in government. It's fine if they go around lynching niggers who get too uppity.

>1. free speech doesn't really exist within society so its stupid to argue for or accept arguments for it from a dogmatic perspective
nor do human rights, or fainess
>2. there is no such thing as apolitical, and so anyone arguing for free speech is simply attempting to hide behind 'free speech' as a sort of virtue shield while they try to control the narrative
"control the narrative" how? can't you argue the against there points? oh right the man who made the vid is a commie so he can't
>3. as long as there are people who feel afraid about things what you say has consequences in their actions and if you dont consider this it not only makes you a dick but could result in unforeseen behavior (which presumably might not be desirable for you)
funny coming from a anarcho commie, his idology has killed millions more then the nazis

skip to about 24 minutes in and you can figure it out
>everyone bullied me as a kid
>i never got good grades in school
>now a communist
why is it always like this?

depends where you live and how you look at it

Attached: 1192.jpg (900x624, 102K)

Again, who decides what this threshold is? What ideas, regardless of how radical they may or be or what implications they might have should be illegal?

If you mean ideas that are dangerous to public security, this can manifest as literally all dangerous dissent. This means all forms of anarchism, communism, fascism, radicalism, or anything that might elicit enough of a reaction to cause harm(to the state, which legislates this). My point is that you can't kill an idea in any way other than logically defeating it and proving it wrong. If racists are dangerous, and they have a set of key valid reasons for their beliefs in their head, the only way you can get rid of this racism is by directly addressing these reasons they have(refuting the evidence they cite for their beliefs) and not just "banning" them and giving power to the state to censor ideas that may very well be right, but which endanger those in power.

KKK is just another name for Police, so yeah those guys are government

It's comical how anarchists get so angry they can't just use violence against people who disagree with them. It's even more comical when they chimp out when they face consequences for their own speech.

>free speech has consequences
Yeah no shit free speech has consequences, the Wiemar Republic had hate speech laws. Yet, they still elected Hitler on an anti-communist platform. That's the consequences of your leftist speech.

Listen to this violent speech that will have consequences against law-abiding police. Should you have a right to say that?

>KKK is just another name for Police
would you like a roll of tin foil to go with that conspiracy you have no proof of

Attached: 76a.jpg (552x615, 73K)

>pudgy majorly balding commie
>looks to be a manlet too
Yea I'm not watching 30 minutes of that.

Attached: 1550080829339.gif (250x300, 737K)

look, when you say niggers have low iq and should be denied welfare that's fine, you're in the green concerning the law here.

when i punch you for saying that im the one breaking the law.

im cool with that.

we're not fucking liberals man, we hate "tolerance", we really do. we dont give a flying fuck about "rights" about "free speech". iif i would see Ben Shapiro on a street corner i wouldn't debate that motherfucker. its fucking 2019 already. grow the fuck up mister upstanding law abiding citizen-man.
talk shit-get hit, its not that complicated, you wanna debate a motherfucker, go find yourself some tolerant liberal and debate that cum sipper. not in our school

And if his kike bodyguard shoots you two dozen times then the world will be a better place.

My point is that the argument to ban ideas is a cop-out to censor political opponents who can't be defeated through debate and addressing the underlying reasons for their beliefs. However in doing this, all you do is empower the state to censor any ideas that endanger them, which can include ideas far beyond the scope of "hate speech" to basic concepts such as "unionizing" and "hey the police just killed my mom". It is not in the interest of the left or right to promote this.

>nor do human rights, or fainess
correct. fortunately communists do not depend on idealism for justification and have sufficient arguments based on materialism to construct a stable and peaceful society
>"control the narrative" how?
simple, someone says a thing that is critisized, and they hide behind free speech to justify their ability to say it. You see this a lot when people are criticized and default to 'muh opinion' or 'freedom of speech' instead of just defending their position. In one way this just means people who dont even know their own positions argument can spread propoganda. This might be part of the accumulation process. As he correctly points out, monopoly is a natural result of accumulation, and so an accumulation of people sharing the same idea will naturally result in censorship of the other ideas. This can not be avoided. As far as arguing against their points, you have provided a good example here:
>funny coming from a anarcho commie, his idology has killed millions more then the nazis
you see, you cant argue against this because its just propaganda, you believe it with out having any real justification to do so, and so logic can not be used to engage you about it, the only options are to let you go around saying false things baselessly or to forcibly stop you. :^)

>communist
>stable and peaceful society
stopped reading there

problem with your point of view is who becomes arbiter of speech? enlightened philosopher kings? fuck off

God has given us certain rights that cannot be taken from us. states can attempt to do so, but they expose themselves as tyrants.

now there is a difference between freedom, and pure license to do whatever the fuck you want. this used to be predicated upon the spiritual and ethical values that western nations held in common. that all changed though when shitty, degenerate countercultures embedded themselves within systems of power and spread their tentacles

I feel this video from our beloved kommandant is relevant
youtube.com/watch?v=oUnK--Rjeqg

No it doesn't you fucking nigger, it means we should have the right to speak without being arrested, or censored by the state etc.
The public CHOOSING not to listen is not the same as the state FORCING people to not listen and indoctrinating the public to dismissive all non-acceptable speech.

I just destroyed what little argument you had for censoring free speech and you pretty much admitted its just a means to attack your opponents. Who would've thought?

Isn't it nice when your ideas make so much sense you have to make criticism illegal and beat people.

>correct. fortunately communists do not depend on idealism for justification and have sufficient arguments based on materialism to construct a stable and peaceful society
it's 90% idealism
>simple, someone says a thing that is critisized, and they hide behind free speech to justify their ability to say it. You see this a lot when people are criticized and default to 'muh opinion' or 'freedom of speech' instead of just defending their position. In one way this just means people who dont even know their own positions argument can spread propoganda. This might be part of the accumulation process. As he correctly points out, monopoly is a natural result of accumulation, and so an accumulation of people sharing the same idea will naturally result in censorship of the other ideas. This can not be avoided. As far as arguing against their points, you have provided a good example here:

funny because most of them don't make counter arguments to criticize and mostly use emotions to bully and opinions they don't like
most of the speech shut downs just chant slogans and never debate, they then will hide be hind the "muh free speech does not mean freedom of consequences" all while using threats and violence to shut down speech they do not like
>you see, you cant argue against this because its just propaganda, you believe it with out having any real justification to do so, and so logic can not be used to engage you about it, the only options are to let you go around saying false things baselessly or to forcibly stop you. :^)
only if we ignore what communism has lead to in real life.
inb4 "it was not real communism"
it the closest thing he have had and hopefully will ever have

WAAAAH WAAAHHH MY FEELINGS! The purpose of freedom of speech is not at all to protect controversial, unpopular, or otherwise offensive speech!!! WAAAH! The entire Earth MUST bend over for hurt feelings and faggots that can't argue!!!

WAAAAAAHHH!

Attached: Spreading offensive material online is a crime.jpg (1200x675, 75K)

yeah cry some more, go tell mommy-cops that i broke your nose you snitch ass whiny faggot.

i dont believe in freedom of speech. if anyone tries to say gender is a social construct they should be hanged.

Propaganda is ineffective if its blatantly wrong, crazy controversial idea coming through - people believe what they believe for what they find to be logical reasons. Nazis are exposed to certain reasonable information with what they find trustworth evidence to cause them to believe what they believe. As do communists, and liberals. While I agree the tendency for people to just shitfling at each other and not logically debate is kind of ruining human discourse, just banning shit doesn't help anybody. The merit of ideas stand on their own in the face of debate.

If racism or capitalism or whatever is so bad, why not directly attack the reasons they are supported with hard evidence in debate and prove to people they are wrong? Provide reasonable evidence that this source or this study is wrong, and support with your own evidence and arguments. Could it be that these radical ideas actually fall apart under scrutiny? Is that why the radical left and radical right never debate each other, and would rather just censor and make them illegal?

>communism
>stable
I guess, when you can count on the state killing you or starving to death, that is stable.

Attached: COMMUNISM ALWAYS ONE MURDER AWAY FROM UTOPIA.jpg (960x686, 148K)

Don't worry, your momma will be crying in court about how you dindu nuffin. Just another little nigger in jail or 6 feet under.

>inb4 "it was not real communism"
while it wasnt, i dont even need to argue this.
it was never caused by anything but natural conditions and imperialist interference, and at least half of it didnt happen at all.
And capitalism has killed billions.

A few posts earlier you were whining for mommy cops to make the right wingers shut up because you don't like what they say.

I fuck with your anarchism man. The funny this is is that by supporting censorship of speech you are literally collaborating with the government you hate and making them more statist. Anarcho-bootlicker.

>capitalism has killed billions

Have you considered that you're scapegoating all human conflict for class warfare and can't possibly comprehend that groups just fight to assert themselves for the maximum amount of resources and power? I mean, its not like communists have ever fought wars or killed people to maintain their own power or influence or anything, is that class warfare?

>Propaganda is ineffective if its blatantly wrong
When people have no preconception at all about something there is no way for them to reject what they are first told.

>banning
the video is not advocating banning anything, its pointing out that it never exists to start with.
society in a perfectly neutral state will have people saying their ideas. Once an idea gains traction, there will be social pressure against competing ideas. As this increases eventually the competing ideas might even be met with violence, and ultimately those ideas will be banned. This is just what happens. With out some amount of potential force and support to back up your idea it will just be shouted down or outright censored, and this happens even today in modern societies which parade around free speech as an ideal.

>while it wasnt, i dont even need to argue this.
>it was never caused by anything but natural conditions and imperialist interference, and at least half of it didnt happen at all.
>And capitalism has killed billions. reality some denying reality some more i see
sorry but it failed on it's own mertis as a communsit nation in the early stages as all commie projects do, also capitalism has existed for hell of a lot longer then communism did, and improved far more lives
communsim only seem to lead to starvation and collapsed under it's own inherent flaws

you dont need to count for capitalist wars to rack up a capitalist death toll

The two recent 737 max crashes were caused by capitalism, for example. In an effort to make the plane more competitive to airliners they decided, instead of making a new plane to fit that market to compete against a new airbus design, to simply modify the 737 with new more efficient engines. The problem however is the more efficient engines needed to be positioned further forward of the wing to fit on the 737 (as an older design, its wings were lower since engines of that time did not have such large radius intakes). The shifting forward of the engines caused the planes flight characteristics to change, and controling the aircraft at variable speeds required an automatic trimming system to have incredibly power to keep the plane level. This system, having far more control over the plane and than such automatic trimming systems typically do, is what caused the planes to crash when it malfunctioned.
You see trying to make a competitive plane cheaply and easily instead of redesigning from scratch killed people.

look, look at this shit. do we look like the kind of people who gonna debate our enemies? no, "debating" is just a way for our enemies to buy themselves some more time. time that we ran up with. we're not gonna debate macron, fascists, our parents, our liberal professors, the police, capitalist propagandists like ben fucking shapiro, im actually surprised nobody gave stefan molyneux a black eye yet. i know somebody gave gavin mcinnes one.

youtube.com/watch?v=FJTkzAU25yI

we should never place Tolerance as a virtue, there's nothing virtuas about eating shit.

youtube.com/watch?v=xuwkuS5ihIk

that's how its gonna be from now on, just accept it, its actually only the start of things

Attached: Untitled.jpg (819x460, 54K)

>Leftists campaigned to get Free Speech
>Once they got into power with it, they suddenly want to abolish it once its served its purpose.

Why is it now a problem, when the right wants to use free speech against the left? If the left wants to adopt values for the sake of convenience then they have no "higher ground" to stand on when they attempt to shame others for using the same tactics they did.

mindless repetition of dogma

something a commie is well aquatinted with considering it's all you have to defend you ideology

the video is not advocating free speech

>its actually only the start of things
You right about that, subhuman. This time the job will get finished.

>When people have no preconception at all about something there is no way for them to reject what they are first told
Good thing we live in the 21st century, where you can educate yourself at the click of a button and see all sides of an argument. Very rarely does anyone not have some kind of preconception about something, and very rare is "propaganda" spread by free speech not rooted in at least some kind of citable evidence, sketchy or not. The issue I can see arising in stupid people who do not bother to research what they are told, however who are you to legislate other people's stupidity for its implications?

I agree that dangerous ideas escalate and get repressed and that it shouldn't happen, but just because this is commonplace doesn't mean it should be.

>I support free speech so much I will walk alongside communist comrades for their ability to say they want to remove free speech!
>I will die for their right to say they want to remove free speech, but I don't agree with them at all!

>The two recent 737 max crashes were caused by capitalism, for example. In an effort to make the plane more competitive to airliners they decided, instead of making a new plane to fit that market to compete against a new airbus design, to simply modify the 737 with new more efficient engines. The problem however is the more efficient engines needed to be positioned further forward of the wing to fit on the 737 (as an older design, its wings were lower since engines of that time did not have such large radius intakes). The shifting forward of the engines caused the planes flight characteristics to change, and controling the aircraft at variable speeds required an automatic trimming system to have incredibly power to keep the plane level. This system, having far more control over the plane and than such automatic trimming systems typically do, is what caused the planes to crash when it malfunctioned.
>You see trying to make a competitive plane cheaply and easily instead of redesigning from scratch killed people.
all the shit you have here still exists in greater quantities in communism.

Well, you will be unimportant in the third phase. Civil war will be beetwen muzzies and us, regardless of which side win, you lose. You can just give up already.

there is, and has been for probably a hundred years, an argument debunking every single criticism against communism you can possibly bring, available freely on the internet for anyone to read.
After posting them so many times only to have people like you simply refuse to read them and continue repeating yourselves there is not much left to do. Maybe forced re-education camps where you are unable to ignore them might save a few of you.

Where did i say or imply it did?

Im pointing out that if the left wants to engage in hypocrisy in order to advance their agenda that's fine, but they cant pretend to be higher than those who see those tactics for what they are and use them against them.

Yall are useful idiots and a third arm of the modern government, you showed your usefulness in Charlottesville, when you worked alongside the police to end a lawful meeting.

not advocating banning free speech*

Western leftists are evolutionary dead-end.

It deconstructs the concept of free speech with an intent in mind, he doesn't fool me.

>im actually surprised nobody gave stefan molyneux a black eye yet.
If you get mad enough to get violent, you lost the debate. Liberal nutjobs can't handle these rules, liberal nutjobs always lose under these rules. So this thread had to die for leftist feelings.

Attached: 1546787141340.jpg (1242x902, 568K)

>there is, and has been for probably a hundred years, an argument debunking every single criticism against communism you can possibly bring
history and human behavior have already debunked communism

Attached: Communism1.jpg (1024x683, 95K)

youtube.com/watch?v=8RuA-xAzRlE

Attached: brick.jpg (900x900, 44K)

he points out that it will inevitably be banned by whoever 'wins', hes not advocating for it on an ideological basis

you see! you learned this from some boomer propaganda, you just repeat it and have no idea any kind of reasoning or logic behind it, you just believe its true so you repeat it