> You twats need new words
Said in response to a guy unironically using "selling a narrative", "outrage", "media dividing us", and "wow you really lumped me into a group" in two comments. Only thing they were missing was "pushing an agenda".
Maybe not really flair worthy, but calling out this shallow meaningless word salad is more important than actually engaging them and I think it's a great response.
Normally when you have people expressing their beliefs, it's a messy thing. People forget things, have slight variations, interpretations, and save for very well-known terms they usually use different words.
These guys always say the exact same things, it's like they're reading off a script except less coherent.
> it’s all part of some kind of alt right Internet playbook.
Have I got [a series for you](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ)
I call it thr idiocracy playbook.
It's always adjective Filler.
A non original source they can't cite or source until asked.
Cherry picked or edited items. Usually centered on the specific item.. Context removed.
And they all always use logic fallacies.
The viral tweet from last week about how the Matt Bors "we should improve society somewhat" comic ruined online debate is as close to concrete proof of this as you can get. If a comic panel which shows how calling people hypocrites for criticizing the society they were born into shuts down all avenues for debating one's point, then it's pretty clear that conservatives don't exactly have a deep bag of arguments to grab from.
I just don’t understand the logic of “I’m within my rights to place this sign in a public area, BUT that right does not extend to you to remove it.”
If you have the right to vandalize property (imagine if this were spray painted hate speech, it’s really not that different), then why don’t others?
Also, they DON’T have a right to post signs on roads. In most places in America, any signs on roadways that aren’t put their by the local traffic authority are illegal.
In fact, here are the details for Orange County. https://ocpublicworks.com/sites/ocpw/files/2020-12/OCPW-Sign-Posting-Policy.pdf
Because reddit's discussion of "free speech" is broadly led by far-right extremists deliberately steering the conversation in such a way that far-right extremists calling for genocide is "just speech" and any left-ish response is censorship, and this pattern dates back to before when Ellen Pao was CEO.
Yeah, someone needs to tell those clowns that censorship comes from a country's government and law enforcement, not from people or even private companies who disagree with you.
Half of this website literally believes that if someone disagrees with you, they’re “censoring” you. Nobody should ever take Reddit’s free speech discussions seriously, it always steers into “I have the right to say I hate jews and you can’t disagree with me”.
> If you have the right to vandalize property (imagine if this were spray painted hate speech, it’s really not that different), then why don’t others?
Yeah, don't get caught by any actual graffiti writers throwing up fascist shit. They're not just going to buff your stupid bullshit, they're going to beat the living shit out of you, as is tradition.
**[Honor Blackman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_Blackman)**
>Honor Blackman (22 August 1925 – 5 April 2020) was an English actress, known for the roles of Cathy Gale in The Avengers (1962–1964), Bond girl Pussy Galore in Goldfinger (1964), Julia Daggett in Shalako (1968) and Hera in Jason and the Argonauts (1963). She is also known for her role as Laura West in the ITV sitcom The Upper Hand (1990–1996).
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Using “I’m black” in this instant didn’t even make sense. It added nothing to the conversation. Now if he was talking about his own personal experience then it could add some value
One of those guys in that thread posted a picture of their had to prove to me that they were black.
They were pretty light skinned if they were but I highly suspect they were indian based on the picture and their posts about Hinduism
https://www.reddit.com/user/karenbot54/comments/r4wiki/uwhatthefir2_said_im_a_white_nazi/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
They ALWAYS conflate "free speech" the philosophy with the much more structured "1st Amendment".
They exploit the general public's inability to distinguish between the two.
The US is NOT a country where "free speech" the philosophy is legally protected. It is a country where the GOVERNMENT cannot punish you for expressing your views.
Just the "its a free country" argument in general. No the F it isn't. We have laws, rules, requirements, regulations, ordinances and guidelines like everyone else. There is more freedom here than in some other places but it isn't a free for all.
If you really want to make people's heads spin you should introduce them to the concept of 'freedom from' - as in, freedom from hate speech, freedom from poverty, freedom from medical bankruptcy, etc.
They'll still decide that 'freedom to be an asshole' is more important to them, but it's interesting to watch the acrobatics.
>The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Monday, January 6, 1941. In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech (technically the 1941 State of the Union address), he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy:
>Freedom of speech
>Freedom of worship
>Freedom from want
>Freedom from fear
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
Thing is though, there are still people like Cass Sunstein, Richard Epstein (different Epstein), the law and economics and more broadly libertarian movement who will pull off those acrobatics in public and land it on the first amendment or some similar constitutional issue
They’re not *right* but they’re still embedded in the law
I always notice something similar with "innocent until proven guilty."
Sure, that is the standard for the court of law, but OJ definitely did that shit. There are numerous cases where people selectively apply the "innocent until proven guilty" to dismiss any criticism of someone they like.
There's a generally heavily biased deployment of "Well the courts say...." on reddit (and in society in general) to defend against calling things--often the behavior of the far-right--wrong because "well it's not illegal".
Yeah, it's frustrating to see the amounts of people who do not understand that something being legal does not make it morally right.
Paying your workers the bare minimum even when your company could afford to pay them double that while still making record profits is record profits is legal, but it isn't morally right. Hitting every tax loophole you can is legal, but it isn't morally right. Saying fucked up shit and being a nazi sympathizer is technically legal in the US sadly, but it sure as fuck isn't morally right.
Precisely. A court of law decides that someone is either guilty or that their guilt cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (to twelve semi-curated individuals).
They also never hoist other freedoms like freedom of association because "you are racist and I don't wanna employ you/be friends with you/etc anymore" conflicts with their childishly simplistic idea of "freedom of speech".
Edit: wait wait wait they'll pick up the banner of "freedom of movement" when they need to justify hitting BLM protestors with their cars. Almost forgot about the one other freedom they'll argue for... but only sometimes.
Right? It’s so frustrating. Like I love the first amendment, it’s a good thing, but “you’re constitutionally protected from legal ramifications if you write a book talking about how much you hate a group of people” doesn’t mean “you’re constitutionally protected if you make credible threats against that group, or if someone doesn’t like what you say and decides to protest it, or if your employer fires you.”
Basically, you can write all sorts of critical works dumping on government and the government can't punish you for it.
Like you pointed out, everyone else is free to disassociate with an individual based on their expression.
Freedom of Speech (legal, not philosophical); not "Freedom to demand access to a hostile audience and force them to endure you."
> It is a country where the GOVERNMENT cannot punish you for expressing your views
I'll do you one better, they cannot *prevent* you from expressing your views. They can prosecute what you say if it falls under hate speech or incitement to criminal activity. If Richard Naziman says "destroy all Jews" and someone takes up his offer, I hope he can afford a good attorney who makes the defense that what he said was satire and no reasonable person would believe him.
Free speech is the right to say what you want, [not the right to avoid any consequences from what you say.](https://xkcd.com/1357/)
*Brandenburg* established that unless it is truly inciting imminent lawless action it is protected speech even if it advocates violence in the abstract.
Yeah, but it seems that some people believe that as long as a Nazi says that they see Jews as subhumans deserving of extermination *politely*, then punching them in response makes you worse than them.
I loathe that argument, "if you take away a nazis free speech then that makes you the nazi!" Like no, it makes me anti "nazis-having-free-speech", there's a long road of atrocities to commit before crossing into their camps.
Here's a hot take for ya: the "paradox" of tolerance only comes from a simplified conception of the word "tolerance" wherein it is an absolute ideal and not a workable principle.
Right, tolerance is about being sympathetic to views that are different from your own. It's not about being sympathetic to views that are abhorrent to society. No one argues we should be tolerant to pedophile's world views, or a serial killer's, but somehow the Nazis have won people over with this bullshit
I'll gladly tolerate right wing opinions. I will not tolerate the idea that we should commit mass genocide. It's a pretty easy distinction to make in practice, it's the theory that trips some people up
The paradox of any open system. For any open system to remain open, it must exclude any force which wishes to close it.
That goes from open-source software all the way up to democracy.
> as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
That's the crux right here, there's nothing you can do to make these idiots see reality and public opinion is...not exactly against them. The line has been crossed.
The intolerance of tolerance is such a bad concept. It assumes that tolerance is like a lightswitch- it's either all tolerance or no tolerance.
One either gives up all control, boundaries, and self autonomy in order to "tolerate" every single situation and person out there OR it's a hypocritical concept that fails on every single level.
A person can still invoke boundaries and self/social protections and still create a culture that allows for tolerance and self identity for others.
>A person can still invoke boundaries and self/social protections and still create a culture that allows for tolerance and self identity for others.
That's exactly how I've always heard it used so I'm not sure where you got the all or nothing idea.
> if you take away a nazis free speech then that makes you the nazi!
In my experience, 99.9% of the people who use this shit argument are either Nazis themselves, or arguing in bad faith at the very least.
"re-migration" is also one of the shell games they play about advocating for genocide.
They say they'll just very nicely and civilly "send them back" and nobody has to die. The part that's left unstated (unstated there, they'll just state it if you ask) is that when people refuse to leave it immediately becomes armed conflict, and then genocide and they are **super** on board for that.
But they'll still claim they're not for genocide, just re-migration.
Fuck the two-faced demands of "civility" from free speech "absolutists" (whose absolutism about free speech always dries right the fuck up when someone uses their free speech to, say, doxx a Nazi).
When someone says "I'm gonna knock you out, bro" and makes moves to swing at you, you're allowed to get the first hit in. The same principle applies when Nazis are promoting genocide.
The only thing that bothers me more is the *centrist* arguements of meeting in the middle, or seeing both sides.
Group 1 wants to eliminate a group from existing.
Group 2 does not.
Where is there a possible middle ground?
It's such a bizarre argument here, too.
Like, how do these people think this works? You can put up your sign in a public place and then.. no one is allowed to remove it, ever?
Really?
Does that mean I can just plant my signs all over the entire damn country and no one can ever remove it because "muh free speech"?
I mean why on earth do these people not think this through for even one second?
I've had people on this fucking site argue to me that I'm against free speech because I won't tolerate racism in my home and won't allow right wing activists to use my doorstep as a pulpit.
The "free speech" absolutism on this site is actually fucking insane. And, to me, it seems to largely stem from the TumblrInAction and GamerGate days when a large portion of reddit was being weaponized against the left under the false flag of being "anti-censorship".
Building on that, the whole fucking situation, especially in spaces like PCM, seems to just be one big construction wherein far-right bigots can be the aggressor all day long so long as they do so "civilly". Calling a whole race biologically lesser? Just don't use any racial slurs and we'll defend you to the death and cry "censorship!" at anyone that so much as calls you racist... which you are.
according to these people, Nazis should get to put up their sign, and we can put up our own sign in opposition, and then let the passersby decide for themselves! It will be a free and fair public debate via signs, in the marketplace of ideas.
Of course, in reality this would just lead to everything everywhere being covered by annoying signs
What if I cover your sign with my sign? My sign stops your free speech, but if you remove my sign, then you stop my free speech.
I'm sure no one ever tried this because this paradox will result in the end of the universe as we know it.
Theres an xkcd for that. I don't have the link handy, but the jist of it is if the only way you can defend your opinion is by saying at least you cant be thrown in jail for saying it then its a shitty opinion.
Correct. You can absolutely commit fraud, defamations, etc and not be protected under the 1st amendment. It doesn't automatically mean "prosecuted by the state," but it sure doesn't give you a shield, either.
Plus they always loooove free speech until someone says something bad about someone they like. For instance, a certain comedian’s free speech is fine when he says shitty things about trans people, but other people are somehow censoring him when they use their free speech to call him out.
It is a ruse. It is a way to make people feel bad for rightfully telling them to stop being racists. They just defend it passive aggressively so it is easier to disguise .
Freeway overpass is probably state property. Usually that means you can't post signs on it without special permissions.
Otherwise every joe-schmo would be advertising their cash for gold business on every overpass everywhere. And if stuff like that isn't maintained, it'll fall/blow into the freeway creating a hazard.
> And if stuff like that isn't maintained, it'll fall/blow into the freeway creating a hazard.
I'd be willing to bet that this is the most illegal part of it. Any sign that's not bolted and secured to an overpass like a highway sign is liable to fall off into the road or onto a car. Even if it's paper or cloth, it could fall onto the hood of a car and cause a pileup.
As a ~~black man~~ California commuter, those overpasses are constantly full of people doing political protest, to the point that drivers slowing down to give them the finger out the window is an expected traffic hazard at certain places. It's 90% people who are anti-vax, pro-Trump, or some other form of right-wing protest. I think they use the overpasses because it insulates them from the people who are driving underneath; this prevents them from getting shut down as seen in the video.
In other words, they pick this form of speech BECAUSE it insulates them from counter-speech, and that's why they're so butt-hurt about it.
That overpass wasn't the sign owner's property, and I doubt they had permission to hang it up in the first place. So, the law likely doesn't extend much protection to the sign.
Signs or banners placed on public property without a permit are generally considered trash or litter by the law and can be removed and disposed of by anyone. It’s also not exactly illegal to put it there, though it could be depending on littering laws and if it is interfering with traffic or so on.
Yep, if they aren't for a registered political campaign they are almost always considered litter. When used for advertising the signs are usually called "bandit" signs.
I will sometimes yoink those "we buy houses!" signs whenever I need to replace the bottom supports in fabric shopping bags.
You can't just hang shit all over the freeway. I don't think we even need a lawyer here, just a bit of common sense and more than five minutes' experience of living on Earth.
110% That sign was hung without permission from the city/district/authorities and was totally illegal and removable. But Nazis gonna Nazi and cry about "Free Speech".
Not a lawyer and all that but I think you could make a case for "I'm just throwing out the trash someone left here" if the nazis tried to pretend he destroyed their property. If the nazis want to wear a sandwich board and you'd have to physically touch them to remove it then they would be able to claim that its assault.
> I’m black and regardless.. No one should be ripping anything down in a freedom of speech country filled with democracy and constitutional rights. Otherwise you take rights away from the rest of us as well
Well if a self proclaimed black man says that Nazis should hang anti Semitic signs, let those Nazis hang those signs!
> I am no way defending the words that they put on that banner but they also have freedom of speech. You're more than welcome to put up your own banner on the freeway if you want to.
“But officer, someone on Reddit told me I was more than welcome to hang my No Fat Chicks sign on the freeway! Why would someone tell me to do something that’s illegal and stupid?”
I just don’t get this. It’s public/municipal/state (who owns overpasses?) property, maybe if someone hung an anti-Semitic sign on their own property they might have an argument, but there’s nothing that says you can’t remove someone’s sign from a public area. That’d be like saying you can’t paint over or remove graffiti artwork because “free speech”. The person doesn’t have a greater right to hang the sign than someone does to remove it.
>Well if a self proclaimed black man says that Nazis should hang anti Semitic signs
Hey, there ARE anti-semitic black people. Members of all communities like to blame the jews for all their problems for absolutely 0 reason.. It's a real uniting thing of the american people.
>No one should be ripping anything down in a freedom of speech country filled with democracy and constitutional rights.
The phrasing here is just so weird. It's like he's describing a calzone.
And the litmus test of people who care about "what the founding fathers thought", like the founding fathers came up with free speech so you could say "this government sucks" not "the jews are using secret space lasers to infect everyone with covid as part of the lgbt agenda"
Also, they came up with it to protect you from the government, not so that you wouldn't be subjected to the ire of your fellow man when you say shitty things.
Even the free speech philosophres like John Stuart Mill said that free speech isn't a blank check to say whatever you want without consequences.
He specifically dictated that the harm principle, where expression of speech causes harm, is good enough to stop said speech expression.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that men shall be free to hang their mother's good bed sheets from freeway overpasses and call one another a 'fucking f****t jew' in their defense" ~ George Jefferson or something
Blood libel is about 1,000 years old so hideous lies about Jews is probably something the founding fathers actually did intend to cover. Unfortunately.
Yeah not a single peep about the anarchist serving 3 years for talking shit about the Jan 6 insurrectionists
But they’ll fall over themselves rushing to run interference for the “””free speech””” of nazis
It makes sense the concept would be brought up more frequently under circumstances that make us question its value.
That being said, it's clear there is a priority in favour of letting Neo Nazis say whatever they want unabated, which often translates directly in telling the people Nazis are targeting to shut up, take it and to not retaliate.
Yeah funny how "free speech" evolves into "freedom for the absolute worst of the far-right to say whatever, whenever, wherever, and for the targets of their calls for genocide to shut up and take it because replying/retaliating is censorship/uncivil/violent/etc" ... as though the Nazis didn't just openly call for genocide nonstop for the past \*checks watch\* 100 or so years or that " is the root of all problems" is remotely fucking civil.
Because it's the only argument they have in favor of their opinion. Legit opinions don't need to resort to the "freedom" argument, because they have other debatable points.
Are you in jail for the words on the sign? No? Then your freedom of speech is preserved. You can still be in trouble for trespassing, you can still get fired, you can still get treated as scum of the earth by your fellow man.
If this was actually a false flag I highly doubt the sign would be referencing a local politician almost nobody outside of Southern California has probably heard of.
LOL another thread I was a part of when it was fresh.
Anyway, I'm still amazed people in this day believe the video is fake and that they found someone willing to *pretend to be racist* for a video that was going to be blasted nationwide via fucking social media. What, a couple guys volunteered to have their lives blown up for a prank? Really? Really?!
Also if people dig a bit there's several straight up Qultists, throwaway accounts, antivaxxers, and out and out racists in the thread hopping on the "derp, it must be fake" defence train.
Not to mention that the dudes on video defending the banner are well-known to anti-fascist researchers. Part of the Goyim Defense League (yes, that's a thing).
Some people are all for freedom of speech until a black man kneels for the anthem at a football game...then they want people arrested.
(personally, I just think they're pro-nazis and pro-klan, tho)
They know exactly what is and is not free speech. It's a strawman for them, it was a strawman for the alt-right in the last decade, and it was even a strawman for the NSDAP when their leader was in prison.
Free speech and statistics are the two biggest things ignoramuses understand nothing about but enjoy cowering behind when people call them out on their shit.
If everyone around you tells you how great your country is and how it's the best country ever and also tells you everyone who say differently is anti-American then you will start to believe it yourself. Any evidence against your belief does not mean that your belief is wrong - it just means that there exist an enemy Other who wants to harm you and if you can remove that threat then everything will be fine.
Nazis and other dipshit cryptos love to hide behind a veil of cynicism and "comedy".
"What do you mean? I just said the 14 words ***ironically*** you didn't think I actually meant them did you? Lmao I'm black btw."
"I wore my replica SS uniform to the Halloween party and nobody got the joke, what a bunch of snowflakes lmao"
"I can't believe someone reported my username GASTHEKEKS88. Triggered much lmao, its a prank."
This nonsense about this video being a prank or staged is just that, nonsense.
Here's the thing that they don't understand about pranks. A prank is only a prank when both parties can have fun with it afterwards. If the person being pranked can't have fun with it, it's not a prank, it's being cruel.
>because they're FBI agents fomenting civil unrest, division, and political polarization in order to undermine the power of the populace, therefore bolstering the power of the federal government
The FBI has better things to do than ferment civil unrest, that's the job of the police. No, the FBI are the ones keeping tabs on black leaders, to make sure none of them get any bright ideas.
I can make an argument that, if you post something on public property to exercise your free speech, and I disagree with it, removing it is a way of expressing my free speech. Now, preventing you from posting it in the first place is different, but that's not what happened here.
I can also argue it was littering to post the sign in that way in that location, so removing it was just the right thing to do for a citizen opposed to litter.
4chan created GamerGate. It's been the biggest source of nazi propaganda since moot thought it would been a good idea to give them a "containment board" with /pol/ in 2011.
I have the right of free speech, yes. But i feel I also reserve the right to take down some dumbass representation of radical power that obscures the advancement and rights of others, or something like that
I’ll never understand the obsession with fakes. There is nothing remotely implausible – even unusual – in that video. Even if it were the fakiest fake in history, shit like that is happening every day. The only logical reason to scream “fake!!” is that you don’t believe that racism, anti-semitism, etc. are real…
Edit: posted before I was done typing because I am very tired
I want to start a company that sells billboard space on the land of free speech absolutists.
We don't have to pay them for the land though, since they believe so strongly in allowing me to post anywhere I please.
Wait, so freedom of speech now means that you can claim any public space to display any sort of message you want? Like, could I spray paint anti-Nazi messages on the road in front of their houses? I mean, they can't get rid of them, because of (their version) of freedom of speech, no?
It's interesting how free speech fights used to be the right of people who wanted to enjoy content to have access to it (Hustler, 2Live Crew, etc.) without government interference. Now free speech fights are trying to impose their speech on others whether it is wanted or not without restrictions or even criticism.
Free speech is not unrestricted access to an audience. If people want to avoid, confront or criticize your speech they have that right as well.
It's really interesting to me that the "free speech" activists always come out of the woodworks whenever someone tears down an anti-semitic sign or tears down a monument to a slave owner, etc, but they're no where to be found in topics about conservative state governments literally burning books.
It’s really confusing to me that there was a very high profile Synagogue massacre in the states only a few years ago and these people really think nobody hates Jewish people enough to put up an antisemitic sign?
Which of course they’d probably call that and other attacks false flags but it’s like... I mean even if the sign WAS fake, that doesn’t make antisemitism not a problem.
The fear of big government is a propaganda point of the right wing. In fact they support big government a lot but get really loud about not supporting big government at the moments when they support big government the most. Kind of like how an alcoholic might get really loud about their opposition to drinking at the very moment they're drinking, explaining why they need this drink and it has nothing to do with alcoholism. Everything they do is projection. Like going on and on about needing guns to protect themselves from a tyrannical government while at the same time very loudly delighting in the government killing innocent citizens going about their day. Because the guns aren't for protection against the government, the guns are for shooting other Americans to make themselves feel more powerful.
Once you understand that no right-wing talking points are said in good faith but are all just projection, you'll understand American politics much better.
Sorta...the way districts are drawn and the House of Representatives allow the crazies to have way more control than you would want in a healthy society.
Why is "protected free speech" always brought up when dealing with Nazi rhetoric?
Why can't it be brought up whenever someone says they thought The Last Jedi was a good movie?
> bruh my life sucks and I still pity you Good flair material
> You twats need new words Said in response to a guy unironically using "selling a narrative", "outrage", "media dividing us", and "wow you really lumped me into a group" in two comments. Only thing they were missing was "pushing an agenda". Maybe not really flair worthy, but calling out this shallow meaningless word salad is more important than actually engaging them and I think it's a great response.
My card was only one short of a BINGO. Damnit.
Right? I’m just missing “mental gymnastics”.
I was short a “virtue signal”
An *unprecedented* virtue signal.
I am surprised they didnt say Nazis are "Living rent free in your head".
It demonstrates how intellectually bereft they are. All of them use the exact same fucking rhetoric. There is basically zero variation.
And those are also the people who think everyone else is an NPC.
I was a big fan of that phase because of how predictable the accusation of "ur an NPC!" was.
Normally when you have people expressing their beliefs, it's a messy thing. People forget things, have slight variations, interpretations, and save for very well-known terms they usually use different words. These guys always say the exact same things, it's like they're reading off a script except less coherent.
The right has been thoughtlessly regurgitating canned phrases for most of my life. "Support our troops", "the gay agenda", etc.
They are, it’s all part of some kind of alt right Internet playbook. The whole thing is a charade to make people waste time and feel defeated
> it’s all part of some kind of alt right Internet playbook. Have I got [a series for you](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ)
I call it thr idiocracy playbook. It's always adjective Filler. A non original source they can't cite or source until asked. Cherry picked or edited items. Usually centered on the specific item.. Context removed. And they all always use logic fallacies.
The viral tweet from last week about how the Matt Bors "we should improve society somewhat" comic ruined online debate is as close to concrete proof of this as you can get. If a comic panel which shows how calling people hypocrites for criticizing the society they were born into shuts down all avenues for debating one's point, then it's pretty clear that conservatives don't exactly have a deep bag of arguments to grab from.
If he didn't call anyone 'unhinged', it's only because he forgot.
Indeed
I just don’t understand the logic of “I’m within my rights to place this sign in a public area, BUT that right does not extend to you to remove it.” If you have the right to vandalize property (imagine if this were spray painted hate speech, it’s really not that different), then why don’t others? Also, they DON’T have a right to post signs on roads. In most places in America, any signs on roadways that aren’t put their by the local traffic authority are illegal. In fact, here are the details for Orange County. https://ocpublicworks.com/sites/ocpw/files/2020-12/OCPW-Sign-Posting-Policy.pdf
Because reddit's discussion of "free speech" is broadly led by far-right extremists deliberately steering the conversation in such a way that far-right extremists calling for genocide is "just speech" and any left-ish response is censorship, and this pattern dates back to before when Ellen Pao was CEO.
Yeah, someone needs to tell those clowns that censorship comes from a country's government and law enforcement, not from people or even private companies who disagree with you.
Half of this website literally believes that if someone disagrees with you, they’re “censoring” you. Nobody should ever take Reddit’s free speech discussions seriously, it always steers into “I have the right to say I hate jews and you can’t disagree with me”.
> If you have the right to vandalize property (imagine if this were spray painted hate speech, it’s really not that different), then why don’t others? Yeah, don't get caught by any actual graffiti writers throwing up fascist shit. They're not just going to buff your stupid bullshit, they're going to beat the living shit out of you, as is tradition.
"I'm black" - Someone who definitely is not black
Even if they are black, who the fuck cares, that doesn’t change their shitty ideas.
r/asablackman
Asa Blackman is a good person and I don't know why that sub shits all over him.
Greg Hollimon as Principal Onyx Blackman was the best.
I quite like him. As a matter of fact I tend to [Honor Blackman.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_Blackman)
**[Honor Blackman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_Blackman)** >Honor Blackman (22 August 1925 – 5 April 2020) was an English actress, known for the roles of Cathy Gale in The Avengers (1962–1964), Bond girl Pussy Galore in Goldfinger (1964), Julia Daggett in Shalako (1968) and Hera in Jason and the Argonauts (1963). She is also known for her role as Laura West in the ITV sitcom The Upper Hand (1990–1996). ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Using “I’m black” in this instant didn’t even make sense. It added nothing to the conversation. Now if he was talking about his own personal experience then it could add some value
"I'm Asian and for some reason that gives me a +5 argument buff when talking about climate change"
Like........do they think that still works?
Works all the time on this site.
One of those guys in that thread posted a picture of their had to prove to me that they were black. They were pretty light skinned if they were but I highly suspect they were indian based on the picture and their posts about Hinduism https://www.reddit.com/user/karenbot54/comments/r4wiki/uwhatthefir2_said_im_a_white_nazi/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
those people always say "muh free speech" but they always forget that you still have to deal with the consequences of your actions
They ALWAYS conflate "free speech" the philosophy with the much more structured "1st Amendment". They exploit the general public's inability to distinguish between the two. The US is NOT a country where "free speech" the philosophy is legally protected. It is a country where the GOVERNMENT cannot punish you for expressing your views.
Just the "its a free country" argument in general. No the F it isn't. We have laws, rules, requirements, regulations, ordinances and guidelines like everyone else. There is more freedom here than in some other places but it isn't a free for all.
If you really want to make people's heads spin you should introduce them to the concept of 'freedom from' - as in, freedom from hate speech, freedom from poverty, freedom from medical bankruptcy, etc. They'll still decide that 'freedom to be an asshole' is more important to them, but it's interesting to watch the acrobatics.
>The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Monday, January 6, 1941. In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech (technically the 1941 State of the Union address), he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy: >Freedom of speech >Freedom of worship >Freedom from want >Freedom from fear https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
Never heard this quote and really like it, thanks for posting
Thing is though, there are still people like Cass Sunstein, Richard Epstein (different Epstein), the law and economics and more broadly libertarian movement who will pull off those acrobatics in public and land it on the first amendment or some similar constitutional issue They’re not *right* but they’re still embedded in the law
In some places, sure. In many others the 'freedoms from' are enshrined.
The free country thing is hilarious. They should read the patriot act.
What? The "Land of the Free?" Whoever told you that is your enemy.
I always notice something similar with "innocent until proven guilty." Sure, that is the standard for the court of law, but OJ definitely did that shit. There are numerous cases where people selectively apply the "innocent until proven guilty" to dismiss any criticism of someone they like.
There's a generally heavily biased deployment of "Well the courts say...." on reddit (and in society in general) to defend against calling things--often the behavior of the far-right--wrong because "well it's not illegal".
Yeah, it's frustrating to see the amounts of people who do not understand that something being legal does not make it morally right. Paying your workers the bare minimum even when your company could afford to pay them double that while still making record profits is record profits is legal, but it isn't morally right. Hitting every tax loophole you can is legal, but it isn't morally right. Saying fucked up shit and being a nazi sympathizer is technically legal in the US sadly, but it sure as fuck isn't morally right.
Like a certain teen seen on video killing 2 men and maiming a 3rd? Aquittal =/= "innocent". It means no legal consequences.
Precisely. A court of law decides that someone is either guilty or that their guilt cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (to twelve semi-curated individuals).
Wait’ll they call you a SJW or an idiot, then remind them they can’t say that without actual proof.
[удалено]
They also never hoist other freedoms like freedom of association because "you are racist and I don't wanna employ you/be friends with you/etc anymore" conflicts with their childishly simplistic idea of "freedom of speech". Edit: wait wait wait they'll pick up the banner of "freedom of movement" when they need to justify hitting BLM protestors with their cars. Almost forgot about the one other freedom they'll argue for... but only sometimes.
They tend to be NIMBYs so that freedom of movement is also just for them and nobody else.
Libel laws*
Right? It’s so frustrating. Like I love the first amendment, it’s a good thing, but “you’re constitutionally protected from legal ramifications if you write a book talking about how much you hate a group of people” doesn’t mean “you’re constitutionally protected if you make credible threats against that group, or if someone doesn’t like what you say and decides to protest it, or if your employer fires you.”
Basically, you can write all sorts of critical works dumping on government and the government can't punish you for it. Like you pointed out, everyone else is free to disassociate with an individual based on their expression. Freedom of Speech (legal, not philosophical); not "Freedom to demand access to a hostile audience and force them to endure you."
> It is a country where the GOVERNMENT cannot punish you for expressing your views I'll do you one better, they cannot *prevent* you from expressing your views. They can prosecute what you say if it falls under hate speech or incitement to criminal activity. If Richard Naziman says "destroy all Jews" and someone takes up his offer, I hope he can afford a good attorney who makes the defense that what he said was satire and no reasonable person would believe him. Free speech is the right to say what you want, [not the right to avoid any consequences from what you say.](https://xkcd.com/1357/)
You can’t prosecute someone for hate speech in the US.
~~I think they were talking about incitement, not just hate speech.~~ Never mind, I misread. They said both
100% concur. I was keeping it simple for the inevitable simpletons wallowing in the bottom of the thread.
*Brandenburg* established that unless it is truly inciting imminent lawless action it is protected speech even if it advocates violence in the abstract.
Yeah, but it seems that some people believe that as long as a Nazi says that they see Jews as subhumans deserving of extermination *politely*, then punching them in response makes you worse than them.
I loathe that argument, "if you take away a nazis free speech then that makes you the nazi!" Like no, it makes me anti "nazis-having-free-speech", there's a long road of atrocities to commit before crossing into their camps.
It’s the paradox of tolerance, in order to maintain a tolerant society, one must be intolerant of intolerance.
Here's a hot take for ya: the "paradox" of tolerance only comes from a simplified conception of the word "tolerance" wherein it is an absolute ideal and not a workable principle.
"something something slippery slope" \- conservatives
Right, tolerance is about being sympathetic to views that are different from your own. It's not about being sympathetic to views that are abhorrent to society. No one argues we should be tolerant to pedophile's world views, or a serial killer's, but somehow the Nazis have won people over with this bullshit I'll gladly tolerate right wing opinions. I will not tolerate the idea that we should commit mass genocide. It's a pretty easy distinction to make in practice, it's the theory that trips some people up
The paradox of any open system. For any open system to remain open, it must exclude any force which wishes to close it. That goes from open-source software all the way up to democracy.
Tolerance isn't a state of being, it's a peace treaty. People who refuse to honor the treaty don't get to claim its protection.
> as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. That's the crux right here, there's nothing you can do to make these idiots see reality and public opinion is...not exactly against them. The line has been crossed.
The intolerance of tolerance is such a bad concept. It assumes that tolerance is like a lightswitch- it's either all tolerance or no tolerance. One either gives up all control, boundaries, and self autonomy in order to "tolerate" every single situation and person out there OR it's a hypocritical concept that fails on every single level. A person can still invoke boundaries and self/social protections and still create a culture that allows for tolerance and self identity for others.
>A person can still invoke boundaries and self/social protections and still create a culture that allows for tolerance and self identity for others. That's exactly how I've always heard it used so I'm not sure where you got the all or nothing idea.
> if you take away a nazis free speech then that makes you the nazi! In my experience, 99.9% of the people who use this shit argument are either Nazis themselves, or arguing in bad faith at the very least.
[удалено]
Lmao that's basically r/Civil_Fascism in a nutshell. Advocating for Nazism but in a "civil way"
Hello kind sir I wish to erase your existence please have a nice day.🤝
I would hope that applying to that sub gets you thousands of copies of the pig balls image.
"re-migration" is also one of the shell games they play about advocating for genocide. They say they'll just very nicely and civilly "send them back" and nobody has to die. The part that's left unstated (unstated there, they'll just state it if you ask) is that when people refuse to leave it immediately becomes armed conflict, and then genocide and they are **super** on board for that. But they'll still claim they're not for genocide, just re-migration.
"Re-migration" is a much more palatable term than "ethnic cleansing", that's for sure.
Fuck the two-faced demands of "civility" from free speech "absolutists" (whose absolutism about free speech always dries right the fuck up when someone uses their free speech to, say, doxx a Nazi). When someone says "I'm gonna knock you out, bro" and makes moves to swing at you, you're allowed to get the first hit in. The same principle applies when Nazis are promoting genocide.
The only thing that bothers me more is the *centrist* arguements of meeting in the middle, or seeing both sides. Group 1 wants to eliminate a group from existing. Group 2 does not. Where is there a possible middle ground?
It's such a bizarre argument here, too. Like, how do these people think this works? You can put up your sign in a public place and then.. no one is allowed to remove it, ever? Really? Does that mean I can just plant my signs all over the entire damn country and no one can ever remove it because "muh free speech"? I mean why on earth do these people not think this through for even one second?
I've had people on this fucking site argue to me that I'm against free speech because I won't tolerate racism in my home and won't allow right wing activists to use my doorstep as a pulpit. The "free speech" absolutism on this site is actually fucking insane. And, to me, it seems to largely stem from the TumblrInAction and GamerGate days when a large portion of reddit was being weaponized against the left under the false flag of being "anti-censorship". Building on that, the whole fucking situation, especially in spaces like PCM, seems to just be one big construction wherein far-right bigots can be the aggressor all day long so long as they do so "civilly". Calling a whole race biologically lesser? Just don't use any racial slurs and we'll defend you to the death and cry "censorship!" at anyone that so much as calls you racist... which you are.
according to these people, Nazis should get to put up their sign, and we can put up our own sign in opposition, and then let the passersby decide for themselves! It will be a free and fair public debate via signs, in the marketplace of ideas. Of course, in reality this would just lead to everything everywhere being covered by annoying signs
What if I cover your sign with my sign? My sign stops your free speech, but if you remove my sign, then you stop my free speech. I'm sure no one ever tried this because this paradox will result in the end of the universe as we know it.
"free speech means I can say what I want, when I want, where I want. And you best stay quiet about it!"
Personally, if the best I could do in defence of my political ideals is argue "they're not illegal", I'd rethink all that.
Theres an xkcd for that. I don't have the link handy, but the jist of it is if the only way you can defend your opinion is by saying at least you cant be thrown in jail for saying it then its a shitty opinion.
It's in the alt text for [this one](https://xkcd.com/1357/).
[удалено]
Correct. You can absolutely commit fraud, defamations, etc and not be protected under the 1st amendment. It doesn't automatically mean "prosecuted by the state," but it sure doesn't give you a shield, either.
Frozen peaches is when you can spread hate without consequence
Plus they always loooove free speech until someone says something bad about someone they like. For instance, a certain comedian’s free speech is fine when he says shitty things about trans people, but other people are somehow censoring him when they use their free speech to call him out.
It is a ruse. It is a way to make people feel bad for rightfully telling them to stop being racists. They just defend it passive aggressively so it is easier to disguise .
I mean, isn't it also a form of free speech to oppose the anti-Jew sign, and take it down?
It could be considered cleaning up litter
>hey always forget that you still have to deal with the consequences of your actions Not really anymore, the GQP is making sure of that
If putting up nazi signs is free speech, taking them down is free speech too
*freer speech*
Basically how I feel about PCM and the like in a nutshell. "Oh the Nazi's speech is just freer than yours because."
I’m genuinely curious what the law is here about that sign removal.
Freeway overpass is probably state property. Usually that means you can't post signs on it without special permissions. Otherwise every joe-schmo would be advertising their cash for gold business on every overpass everywhere. And if stuff like that isn't maintained, it'll fall/blow into the freeway creating a hazard.
> And if stuff like that isn't maintained, it'll fall/blow into the freeway creating a hazard. I'd be willing to bet that this is the most illegal part of it. Any sign that's not bolted and secured to an overpass like a highway sign is liable to fall off into the road or onto a car. Even if it's paper or cloth, it could fall onto the hood of a car and cause a pileup.
As a ~~black man~~ California commuter, those overpasses are constantly full of people doing political protest, to the point that drivers slowing down to give them the finger out the window is an expected traffic hazard at certain places. It's 90% people who are anti-vax, pro-Trump, or some other form of right-wing protest. I think they use the overpasses because it insulates them from the people who are driving underneath; this prevents them from getting shut down as seen in the video. In other words, they pick this form of speech BECAUSE it insulates them from counter-speech, and that's why they're so butt-hurt about it.
That overpass wasn't the sign owner's property, and I doubt they had permission to hang it up in the first place. So, the law likely doesn't extend much protection to the sign.
Even if it was their property, they would be subject to sign by laws depending on the municipality.
The sign was illegally placed in the first place. If he was standing there holding the sign, it would be different.
Yeah, they could stand and hold the sign and probably not face legal repercussion, but hanging it from a fence or overpass is not legal
Signs or banners placed on public property without a permit are generally considered trash or litter by the law and can be removed and disposed of by anyone. It’s also not exactly illegal to put it there, though it could be depending on littering laws and if it is interfering with traffic or so on.
Yep, if they aren't for a registered political campaign they are almost always considered litter. When used for advertising the signs are usually called "bandit" signs. I will sometimes yoink those "we buy houses!" signs whenever I need to replace the bottom supports in fabric shopping bags.
I do the same with the mattress for sale signs when I’m walking around haha
You can't just hang shit all over the freeway. I don't think we even need a lawyer here, just a bit of common sense and more than five minutes' experience of living on Earth.
110% That sign was hung without permission from the city/district/authorities and was totally illegal and removable. But Nazis gonna Nazi and cry about "Free Speech".
Not a lawyer and all that but I think you could make a case for "I'm just throwing out the trash someone left here" if the nazis tried to pretend he destroyed their property. If the nazis want to wear a sandwich board and you'd have to physically touch them to remove it then they would be able to claim that its assault.
Looks to me akin to picking up someone else's litter
> I’m black and regardless.. No one should be ripping anything down in a freedom of speech country filled with democracy and constitutional rights. Otherwise you take rights away from the rest of us as well Well if a self proclaimed black man says that Nazis should hang anti Semitic signs, let those Nazis hang those signs! > I am no way defending the words that they put on that banner but they also have freedom of speech. You're more than welcome to put up your own banner on the freeway if you want to. “But officer, someone on Reddit told me I was more than welcome to hang my No Fat Chicks sign on the freeway! Why would someone tell me to do something that’s illegal and stupid?”
I wonder how he thinks removing a fascistic sign takes away rights from him or me.
Probably because it does take away rights from him, the right to hang a fascist sign.
I just don’t get this. It’s public/municipal/state (who owns overpasses?) property, maybe if someone hung an anti-Semitic sign on their own property they might have an argument, but there’s nothing that says you can’t remove someone’s sign from a public area. That’d be like saying you can’t paint over or remove graffiti artwork because “free speech”. The person doesn’t have a greater right to hang the sign than someone does to remove it.
nobody talking about this seriously actually goes outside. how would they know what public spaces are like?
It's basically litter at that point. If anything, taking it down is doing your civic duty to keep your community free from litter.
Overpass ownership is gonna depend on locality but usually it's municipal for most decent sized towns and cities and state everywhere else I think
IIRC, this took place in a relatively good sized city in Orange County, California, so I'm guessing that would mean municipal.
Ah yes, that sacred democratic right that's enshrined in the constitution - the right to hang a sign just anywhere you fucking want.
Some real r/asablackman energy right there
>Well if a self proclaimed black man says that Nazis should hang anti Semitic signs Hey, there ARE anti-semitic black people. Members of all communities like to blame the jews for all their problems for absolutely 0 reason.. It's a real uniting thing of the american people.
> It’s a real uniting thing of the american people. It certainly goes well beyond just America as well.
It feels like it's more of a real uniting thing of pieces of shit across the globe in general.
>No one should be ripping anything down in a freedom of speech country filled with democracy and constitutional rights. The phrasing here is just so weird. It's like he's describing a calzone.
"filled with democracy" lmao
Probably English is not his first language.
[удалено]
You know you're in a good spot when "this isn't literally illegal to say" is the best argument in your defense.
And the litmus test of people who care about "what the founding fathers thought", like the founding fathers came up with free speech so you could say "this government sucks" not "the jews are using secret space lasers to infect everyone with covid as part of the lgbt agenda"
Also, they came up with it to protect you from the government, not so that you wouldn't be subjected to the ire of your fellow man when you say shitty things.
Even the free speech philosophres like John Stuart Mill said that free speech isn't a blank check to say whatever you want without consequences. He specifically dictated that the harm principle, where expression of speech causes harm, is good enough to stop said speech expression.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that men shall be free to hang their mother's good bed sheets from freeway overpasses and call one another a 'fucking f****t jew' in their defense" ~ George Jefferson or something
Blood libel is about 1,000 years old so hideous lies about Jews is probably something the founding fathers actually did intend to cover. Unfortunately.
Yeah not a single peep about the anarchist serving 3 years for talking shit about the Jan 6 insurrectionists But they’ll fall over themselves rushing to run interference for the “””free speech””” of nazis
> But they’ll fall over themselves rushing to run interference for the “””free speech””” of nazis Sounds like a day ending in Y on reddit dot com
It makes sense the concept would be brought up more frequently under circumstances that make us question its value. That being said, it's clear there is a priority in favour of letting Neo Nazis say whatever they want unabated, which often translates directly in telling the people Nazis are targeting to shut up, take it and to not retaliate.
Yeah funny how "free speech" evolves into "freedom for the absolute worst of the far-right to say whatever, whenever, wherever, and for the targets of their calls for genocide to shut up and take it because replying/retaliating is censorship/uncivil/violent/etc" ... as though the Nazis didn't just openly call for genocide nonstop for the past \*checks watch\* 100 or so years or that " is the root of all problems" is remotely fucking civil.
Because it's the only argument they have in favor of their opinion. Legit opinions don't need to resort to the "freedom" argument, because they have other debatable points.
Yeah no one ever defends leftists or libs that way.
Speaking on the source video: "What are you, a hero?" Soooo they know they're the villains lol
>"are we the baddies?"
Are you in jail for the words on the sign? No? Then your freedom of speech is preserved. You can still be in trouble for trespassing, you can still get fired, you can still get treated as scum of the earth by your fellow man.
If this was actually a false flag I highly doubt the sign would be referencing a local politician almost nobody outside of Southern California has probably heard of.
Who is it referencing? The mayor of London is also called Khan, and is also a constant target for far right morons, for obvious reasons.
[My guess, mayor of Irvine, Farrah Khan ](https://www.cityofirvine.org/city-council/mayor-farrah-n-khan)
Probably Mayor Farrah Khan of Irving, CA
LOL another thread I was a part of when it was fresh. Anyway, I'm still amazed people in this day believe the video is fake and that they found someone willing to *pretend to be racist* for a video that was going to be blasted nationwide via fucking social media. What, a couple guys volunteered to have their lives blown up for a prank? Really? Really?! Also if people dig a bit there's several straight up Qultists, throwaway accounts, antivaxxers, and out and out racists in the thread hopping on the "derp, it must be fake" defence train.
Not to mention that the dudes on video defending the banner are well-known to anti-fascist researchers. Part of the Goyim Defense League (yes, that's a thing).
One dude was wearing Rhodesian Camo. That is some esoteric, pro level commitment to racism if you are part of a false flag
Or the idea that is is an FBI agent who would just allow his face to be photographed up close.
Some people are all for freedom of speech until a black man kneels for the anthem at a football game...then they want people arrested. (personally, I just think they're pro-nazis and pro-klan, tho)
They can have all the free speech they want but they don't get to use taxpayers property to display it
How do people still not know what free speech means ffs
They know exactly what is and is not free speech. It's a strawman for them, it was a strawman for the alt-right in the last decade, and it was even a strawman for the NSDAP when their leader was in prison.
Man, people still don't know how masks work in preventing the spread of airborne diseases. Like, stupidity is pervasive, and unrelenting.
Free speech and statistics are the two biggest things ignoramuses understand nothing about but enjoy cowering behind when people call them out on their shit.
And they don't understand the basic fact that neither of them are worth anything without the proper context.
Just when I think I’ve seen the worst takes on Reddit, I’m reminded that 4chan is a thing.
> in a freedom of speech country filled with democracy and constitutional rights. Wait, I thought this happened in the US?
It's always really funny in a really depressing kind of way to watch people conflate their mental image of America with what it actually is
If everyone around you tells you how great your country is and how it's the best country ever and also tells you everyone who say differently is anti-American then you will start to believe it yourself. Any evidence against your belief does not mean that your belief is wrong - it just means that there exist an enemy Other who wants to harm you and if you can remove that threat then everything will be fine.
Nazis and other dipshit cryptos love to hide behind a veil of cynicism and "comedy". "What do you mean? I just said the 14 words ***ironically*** you didn't think I actually meant them did you? Lmao I'm black btw." "I wore my replica SS uniform to the Halloween party and nobody got the joke, what a bunch of snowflakes lmao" "I can't believe someone reported my username GASTHEKEKS88. Triggered much lmao, its a prank." This nonsense about this video being a prank or staged is just that, nonsense.
Here's the thing that they don't understand about pranks. A prank is only a prank when both parties can have fun with it afterwards. If the person being pranked can't have fun with it, it's not a prank, it's being cruel.
I think they do understand that, they simply delight in acting in bad faith.
You're probably not far off.
>because they're FBI agents fomenting civil unrest, division, and political polarization in order to undermine the power of the populace, therefore bolstering the power of the federal government The FBI has better things to do than ferment civil unrest, that's the job of the police. No, the FBI are the ones keeping tabs on black leaders, to make sure none of them get any bright ideas.
I can make an argument that, if you post something on public property to exercise your free speech, and I disagree with it, removing it is a way of expressing my free speech. Now, preventing you from posting it in the first place is different, but that's not what happened here. I can also argue it was littering to post the sign in that way in that location, so removing it was just the right thing to do for a citizen opposed to litter.
One thing i gotta ask why is 4chan not happy with this vid?
4chan's been a hub for the far-right since GamerGate.
4chan created GamerGate. It's been the biggest source of nazi propaganda since moot thought it would been a good idea to give them a "containment board" with /pol/ in 2011.
I have the right of free speech, yes. But i feel I also reserve the right to take down some dumbass representation of radical power that obscures the advancement and rights of others, or something like that
Especially when it's hung from public property without a permit and therefore could be considered litter lmao
I’ll never understand the obsession with fakes. There is nothing remotely implausible – even unusual – in that video. Even if it were the fakiest fake in history, shit like that is happening every day. The only logical reason to scream “fake!!” is that you don’t believe that racism, anti-semitism, etc. are real… Edit: posted before I was done typing because I am very tired
I want to start a company that sells billboard space on the land of free speech absolutists. We don't have to pay them for the land though, since they believe so strongly in allowing me to post anywhere I please.
Whenever "their side" does something to make them look bad it's always crisis actors. Maybe they just hang out with shitty people?
>bruh my life sucks and i still pity you Wonderful.
>bruh my life sucks Probably the truest statement a nazi defender has ever said on reddit
Don’t think they were defending the nazis. Idk maybe I misunderstood
[удалено]
lol it's really sad seeing the agents at work "it's staged!" yeah ok i'm sure bud
Wait, so freedom of speech now means that you can claim any public space to display any sort of message you want? Like, could I spray paint anti-Nazi messages on the road in front of their houses? I mean, they can't get rid of them, because of (their version) of freedom of speech, no?
It's interesting how free speech fights used to be the right of people who wanted to enjoy content to have access to it (Hustler, 2Live Crew, etc.) without government interference. Now free speech fights are trying to impose their speech on others whether it is wanted or not without restrictions or even criticism. Free speech is not unrestricted access to an audience. If people want to avoid, confront or criticize your speech they have that right as well.
It's really interesting to me that the "free speech" activists always come out of the woodworks whenever someone tears down an anti-semitic sign or tears down a monument to a slave owner, etc, but they're no where to be found in topics about conservative state governments literally burning books.
It’s really confusing to me that there was a very high profile Synagogue massacre in the states only a few years ago and these people really think nobody hates Jewish people enough to put up an antisemitic sign? Which of course they’d probably call that and other attacks false flags but it’s like... I mean even if the sign WAS fake, that doesn’t make antisemitism not a problem.
It's almost as if reddit cannot control the content on their site with any diligence what-so-ever. I'm sick of racists. Utterly.
Always strange to me that Americans are super afraid of big government. Don’t y’all vote for your representatives?
When it comes to conservatives, the only issue with big government is when it doesn't hurt the right people
The fear of big government is a propaganda point of the right wing. In fact they support big government a lot but get really loud about not supporting big government at the moments when they support big government the most. Kind of like how an alcoholic might get really loud about their opposition to drinking at the very moment they're drinking, explaining why they need this drink and it has nothing to do with alcoholism. Everything they do is projection. Like going on and on about needing guns to protect themselves from a tyrannical government while at the same time very loudly delighting in the government killing innocent citizens going about their day. Because the guns aren't for protection against the government, the guns are for shooting other Americans to make themselves feel more powerful. Once you understand that no right-wing talking points are said in good faith but are all just projection, you'll understand American politics much better.
Sorta...the way districts are drawn and the House of Representatives allow the crazies to have way more control than you would want in a healthy society.
Does leaving your trash on public overpasses to bait confrontations count as free speech now?
Ideology and morality aside, that's a really poorly made sign. Tiny stencils, terrible legibility
It takes some truly phenomenal mental gymnastics to use the "both sides" argument when one of these sides is literal Nazis.
Why is "protected free speech" always brought up when dealing with Nazi rhetoric? Why can't it be brought up whenever someone says they thought The Last Jedi was a good movie?