On "free speech"

This. If you call anonymous people niggers and numales every day online don't expect them to not fuck you up when they get the chance. Really that simple.

It must be absolute. I mean, how else would we spot the people to be put under surveillance or the ones to be instagulagged?

Oh wow I guess I wasn't very clear. Violence has a chilling effect on speech obviously. But if you suppress their speech though social sanction and whatnot then you've got the negative effects of making them harder to spot without getting any closer to the goal of getting rid of them. Rather than confronting the problem, it's just a way to make it disappear from view. Pummeling them, chasing them out of communities, putting them against the wall, etc. are going to make them disappear from view too, but that's more a side effect of actually getting rid of them. If you just plug your ears and shout "I can't hear you" then you've done nothing but weakened yourself.

I'm just trembling in fear at the prospect of being pummeled with vidya news posts.

It's important to understand that free speech refers to the ability of the government to crack down on what you say. We can support free speech while also support beating the shit out of Nazis for the stupid shit they say.

Someone mind copy-pasting this over to .pl so it looks like we're active over there to keep up the ruse?

You do know we do this as well, right?

Its been down for a while

Sure, the same thing applies to us. I'm not gonna feel sorry for some idiot leftist who drops the n word around a black dude and gets whacked for it.

not the same way though.

It's not like autist right cares about freedom of speech for anyone but themselves, so it's justifiable to restrict theirs. They seem to think that they are entitled to call for an ethnic cleansing and civil war, while themselves having immunity against getting the same treatment from the people they target. They are now already killing people, it would be a mistake for people to not retaliate. Nazi germany happened because left tolerated their hatespeech for too long.

Is this really consistent? Do you think it should be legal to punch people for exercising their free speech?

If you don't, how can you believe something should be illegal but encourage people to do it anyway?

If you do, then who gets to decide which speech people could legally get punched for? I don't see how anyone else but the government could make that decision, and in that case the government is in fact cracking down on people's free speech, but in a less direct way. It's still the government calling the shots on what speech is acceptable and not.

...

I'm saying we shouldn't want the government to start regulating speech, but we should fight back against Nazi shit whenever we get the chance. Of course the government won't make it legal for us to assault people. I'm also not saying that if we seize control of the state we should maintain free speech for Nazi fucks. Asking the government to do something about the Nazis opens the door for them to do something about us too.

It's possible to be an anarchist and say that the community (by which we mean the government but we're discussing anarchist thought and anarchists are retarded) shouldn't be in the business of policing people beating the shit out of people at all, but then there's absolutely nothing stopping some fucks using violence to seize the means of production for themselves and forcing people into wage labor again and that's obviously terrible.

No officiating body needs to (or should) define what kind of speech is "punchable." The level of acceptance of the use of mild to moderate violence in response to speech is not a hard fact set in stone, it's decided collectively by society which is of course informed by a lot of nebulous factors. Luckily, even in Burgerland under Trump, most sensible people seem to be okay with punching a Nazi for saying Nazi shit.

It's called COINTELPRO and it's far more effective than banning that thing.

It's a spook
It's literally just a borderline excuse to let porkies and their fascists tools spout calls for genocide without fear of repercussion and if someone does stand up it can be shot down with mug free speech muh rights

I'm not convinced that logic is very consistent. Someone would have to walk me through it, but violent suppression of speech seems to me like it is violent suppression of speech whether the government does it or citizens do it. In both cases, you are afraid to speak because of the threat of violence.

But at the same time, I think it practically benefits us to support that position. The state is far more dangerous than any fervent group of ideological citizens. Furthermore, having the state be hands off while allowing for popular opinion to basically decide what is ok to support in the streets allows for a dynamic conversation to go on within the population about what they think is to their benefit to allow to speak. I think this kind of system will inevitably come down upon any ideology that is too divisive, violent and/or not adequately populist like fascism. A lot of people aren't white, and most people are liberals. They're not going to tolerate neo-nazis in the streets, but they will likely tolerate socialists because their message is one that is meant to benefit all, though still a little fringe.

I think that should be upheld in the communist state, up until the point that fascism seems like a popular, growing problem. If it does, then the theory that free speech with private repression of unpopular speech is not enough to stop fascism, and it may be considered that the revolutionary state will have to defend itself.

The main problem with private repression of speech is the internal idpol battles on the left that took down demonstrations like Occupy, but a part of this seems like disorganization. If you had greater organization, you could simply structure your demos so that random sectarians aren't allowed to grab the mic and shout you down. Instead there is a problem of allowing them to strong arm their way to the megaphones.

Alright, I see. So right now, we should "support free speech", as in not calling for the government to crack down on nazi speech, since that would make it more likely for the government to crack down on our speech sooner or later. But if we get into power and could construct our ideal society, we wouldn't allow free speech for nazi's. Supporting free speech right now is a matter of strategy, as calling for censorship would inevitably backfire on us. Am I understanding your position correctly?

If "porkies and their fascists" spout calls for genocide within a prosperous socialist society, they'll be laughed at for doing something so pointless. If they spout it within a non-prosperous socialist society, although they may be as dumb as bricks the idea that the society has no problems is also as dumb as bricks and poking in any holes whatsoever in the way it's ran even when it's from a dumb framework ought to be accepted.

Also I think corporatist (=fascist) economics and the values of classical republicanism (which I read fascism as extending) have a lot of merit to them, even though quashing civil liberties and being militaristic are both basically the opposite of correct. Does being willing to give the lot a few points make me a fascist?

...

Free speech among other ideals can only work if smart people are the ones with said rights.

ITT impotent 14 year olds fantasize about "shutting up" people they change sidewalk in the street to avoid.

Terrifying.

Well, OP, let's talk about this from a different angle. I'm an adult who loves teenage girls. In the rest of the world this is completely normal and unremarkable, but Americans are indoctrinated idiots who would try to assault me if they knew, which is why I own a gun. My right to free speech doesn't exist in America because the corporate media filled people's heads full of soccer mom-tier fearmongering propaganda saying that any sexual relationship between an adult and a teen is automatically exploitative. They have no evidence for this, but that hasn't stopped them from going on a witch hunt because that's what they like to do. is correct that people don't listen to logic. Officially I have the right to free speech, but if your life can be made unlivable through unofficial means for saying something that goes against the status quo, it's pretty much the same as if that speech was officially banned. Those who care about free speech need to figure out a way of allowing everyone to have a platform while simultaneously making sure Nazis are prevented from building more death camps, but until such a way is found the issue will remain full of thorny moral compromises.

Freedom of speech is simply freedom to criticize government.

Government which allows CP and death threats to individuals/minorities, but don't allow criticising of government does not have free speech. Government which fines you for calling your neighbour faggot but allows you to tell your politicians to kys, does have free speech.

If your country allows you to tell your president and government to kys, congratulation, you have maximum free speech any government can give you. Anything else is just populist regulation.

Nice way to narrow down an already narrow concept.

Say that I observe the state of the country and see that it's sectarian as hell over shit that doesn't matter, but the government either doesn't do anything about it or switches its side on the pointless sectarian conflict every election, and advocate it get its head out of its ass and either find some way to stop it or throw up its hands in defeat and separate itself on those sectarian lines. Allowing for the possibility of the latter means that I implicitly "endorse" the sectarian conflict; should I be fined or whatever for doing so even though I'm doing so from the lens of criticizing the government?

Basically. On a personal level I prefer letting people say whatever as part of that old imageboard mentality, but I don't think that is a good move when fighting the forces of counter-revolution. I'd like to see a future where people can say whatever and it not matter, but that's sadly not the way things work in the real world.

You can just say nigger here you know I also don't get why it should be ok to punch someone if they're just talking some shit at the bar in a joking manner with their friends. Word is just a word, its neutral

Still a step up from le epic bacon helicopter rides

That doesn't take much effort

...

I have read your post about 30 times now, and I'm still not sure if I understand you correctly. i'm little drunk and english is not my native language

If they are being sectarian over "shit that doesn't matter", why should you be fined for it?

free speech does not exist in a class society, every speech is ideology of one class against the other. bourgeoise speech is reactionary and its speakers need to be taken out if you sincerely want a revolution.

Meh, I sort of worded it terrible. The point I was trying to get across is that if some idiots wanted racial separation (separation, not supremacy; the latter is completely different) there's nothing wrong with giving them a playpen state where they can put it into practice, as long as they don't get a disproportionate share of natural resources or capital.

Oh, I was almost thinking that you are trying to imply some weird situation from former socialist countries.

Well, that's why you have, in every civilized country, populist regulations which doesn't allow such parties participating in politics. If they want their own country, they need to be able to defend it. We live in finite world, with finite resources, and I doubt they would be enough members willing to join them to not be annexed or starved to death.

...

If it's not inciting violence then it should be allowed. The thing is poverty is violence and Nazis to conservatives all advocate for policies that inflict and exacerbate violence.
You try to pretend that it's just nuance policy differences but anyone that has gen at the bottom wrungs of society knows exactly what it is.
Once again you're trying to frame it as some foofy speech issue, when in reality it's class warfare that you realize is finally starting to turn against you.

To everyone against freze peach what makes you think censorship won’t e used against you?

Censoring Nazis does not stop them organizing. It does not make them go away. It just makes them more difficult to identify and observe. Even in states which have laws to actively ban being a neonazi, the far-right are still a political presence.

really makes me think..

That's why they should be allowed to organize by the state, and then attacked by counter-protest and ID'ing participants.

Something interesting about this spectacle thus far is that it has boosted morale, but I'm wondering if that morale boost will coincide with further progress in a revolutionary strategy, or if it will just be a series of street games that serve to make people feel productive when they're just taking part in a series of street brawls.

What makes you believe that it isn't already?

Great! Let's kill all jews.

Fucking hell Holla Forums are you niggers even trying anymore.

Free Speech also implies freedom to disagree, argue, and express your desire to demolish the opposition's opinion one way or another. So you have the right to say you want to push their shit in.

To be told you don't have the right to say that because censorship is contradictory to the aims of free speech.

Jesus fucking Christ what's wrong with all of you? You act like you're somehow revolutionary non-liberals when you think exactly like a fucking liberal who wants to restrict all speech they don't like. Stop being a fucking child and thinking that if someone offends you or someone else that means they deserve to be hit. Restricting speech, particularly on emotional grounds, is horribly stupid on a practical level, since there's absolutely no reason the same standards can't be used against you. It's also extremely intellectually bankrupt, there's no good reason why some words or opinions are allowable and others aren't, and there's zero difference between the government or individuals restricting speech with violence. You all reek of idealism, where you think that ideologies or words direct the world (which means you have to stop Fascists from speaking), and not the material conditions turning people to such ideologies. Fascism doesn't grow because Fascists hold public rallies or speeches, Fascism grows when the material conditions causes individuals to try to find radical solutions.

Restricting the speech of a "Fascist" or a "Reactionary" now just makes you look like a liberal who reacts aggressively when their feelings get hurt. Restricting their speech in a future Socialist society is just fucking stupid and pointless, since those beliefs would make as much sense as someone advocating now for most of the population, including himself, being pressed into slavery. People should say whatever the fuck they want: firstly because I'm not a child and opinions don't cause me to react violently, and secondly because a logical person shouldn't want to live in a world where people can arbitrary decide that certain beliefs are "wrong", including your own, and that means it's legitimate to use violence to suppress them. If someone is being a Nazi Nigger Faggot, then go ahead and call him a Nazi Nigger Faggot that should go hang himself, just don't be such a moralistic bitch about it.

Forgot my pic

Amazing article to forward to any and all liberals.

jacobinmag.com/2017/02/garton-ash-free-speech-milo-yiannopoulos

I disagree strongly with the counter-protests. The capitalist state has bestowed upon itself the responsibility to keep law and order. It is not the place of leftists to adopt such a role. It would be far more effective if any interested individuals were to quietly eliminate fash participants when not gathered en-mass. It is also worth noting the strong involvement of state politicians in many anti-fash groupings. Not that this is of interest to any of the fuckwits who think larping as the Battle of Cable Street is anything other than an effective way of allowing the state to observe the members of both sides (see: Forward Intelligence Team), allow law enforcement to easily clean up the remnants after they've done that hard work of exhausting each other and let the capitalist state portray itself as defender against these barbarians of both far-left and far-right.

Except now you can't make jokes about ethnic cleansing, which go a long way to preventing actual ethnic cleansing. And I mean, what, you write a report on ethnic cleansing and how it is bad, that's ok, but you change a few words and now you get thrown in jail? "Ethnic cleansing is bad" is fine, but "Ethnic cleansing is good" gets you jail, and by preventing people from writing "Ethnic cleansing is good" you're really so deluded that stops anything?

And it doesn't stop with just "I want to ethnic cleanse your mom", because people in any social system climb the ladder by signaling to the community that they are the purist representations of whatever rules you lay down. The form is always the same, only the content changes, whether the society is christian theocracy or communist utopia or fascist dystopia.

It doesn't stop at just disallowing "lets cleans this ethnicity", since people try to climb the social ladder by also disallowing anything that could possibly conceivably lead to someone's feelings getting hurt, meaning a big campaign against Holocaust-like stuff, because SOMEONE will try to make a name for themselves as a friend to the natives by seriously arguing that wearing native halloween costumes will lead to ethnic cleansing unless something is done to stop it.

same thing would happen in fascist dystopia. obviously they'd ban speech that promotes irrelevant shiting. but to show how super pure they are they'd also ban listening to music by blacks and ban reading any books by jews, because one day you're listening to hip hop and the next day you're getting gangbanged on monstercocks.com.

same thing happens in christian theocracy. obviously we're fine pushing your shit in if you say "I worship satan". But then some jerk goes for the alpha spot with a campaign against any speech that references or studies any pagan philosophy. Because once you read Plato you're just a few steps away from worshiping Satan and losing your soul.

THAT is why free speech MUST be absolute. Or you descend into that purity nonsense every time, in every system.

I thought the liberal stereotype is of "I'll defend to death the right of fascists to promote genocide"?

That reminds me, check out the salt being spilled by the Blue Checkmark Brigade about Milo.

twitter.com/AP/status/888421075784257536
twitter.com/aclu/status/895353594127552517
twitter.com/aclu/status/830131431506485248

Only in the Classical Liberal sense, but modern liberals are not those. When you think about SJWs or Californian urbanites, do you actually think they care about protecting opposing beliefs?

The right to free speech doesn't exists in law, speech just is and can only be suppressed via action. The US Constitution is illegitimate. The Articles of Confederation is the true law of the land and doesn't protect free speech because it doesn't need to. The 1st amendment is an illusion that's so broadly worded it leaves numerous exceptions like this.
law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444
Decisions like this are public and apply to everyone and it's supposed to piss people off and divide everyone over something petty.

Free speech should be something all communists and socialists support.

Beating up your enemy isn't anti-free speech.

The law of karmic reciprocity applies here.
It's also known as the "talk shit, get hit" law.

You are Anti-Free Speech. You are not in support of free speech or freedom of expression, in any way. Because those concepts are universals.
This does not mean you are wrong or bad. But you are against freedom of Speech.

I don't think I understand your meaning. American Socialists supported free speech in the early 20th century, and that didn't stop the state from running roughshod over them, or the goons of capital from burning, abusing, raping, etc socialists for trying to utilize that free speech.

So what good is "supporting free speech?" Free speech won't protect you from a truncheon or stop a bullet. You can't even advocate it using the mechanisms of the state, because while you're guaranteed Free Speech, the state gets to decide what that means ("You're still allowed to speak, only in this ten by ten box, thirteen miles from whatever you're trying to protest…").

So help me out here. What the fuck does "free speech" even mean and why should I support it? Is it the right for anyone to say anything at any time for whatever reason? To have opinions and share them? Does "free speech" cover lying, too? Do I have to tolerate whatever obnoxious asshole wants to come to Holla Forums and vent their noxious spleen about the inferiority of niggers and women? What about shitposting? Is that protected by Free Speech? Or is banning someone spamming chopped up dicks in every page an infringement of this most holy and sacred right?

Help me out here, man, because from what I can see "free speech" isn't anything more than an empty platitude when it isn't being used by some chump-right cocksmoker to cry about how unfair it is that he isn't allowed to spew venom with impunity. The ones most in need of "free speech" are going to be the ones denied access to it anyway–just as previous generations of socialists and communists were and are.

While I fucking hate he was cutoff he wasn't answering the question.

Free speech is that right that you have to criticize your own state.
Dunno why burgers have to complicate the whole thing.
Going on the internet and spewing bullshit about inferiority isn't free speech: everyone can do that shit.
The only regulations, IMO, should be fines for speaking about organizing events that involve violence: there's no "free speech" in talking about how you're going to commit a fucking genocide because you dont like the "X"s.
If we're speaking about general trolling and just plain insults, you just shouldn't be allowed to cry or sue if some tall afro comes knocking to your door to beat your ass because you called him an inferior subhuman on the internet.

Despite broadly speaking being a free-speech-extremist ("Well, maybe shouting fire in a crowded theatre was okay…") I'm inclined to support censoring the insufferable.

Solid principles become malleable once tired.

Because it lets the right thing be done, yet let my government wash their hands of it.

This is also true.
Also noteworthy is that even in the internet age the major organs for news, etc, are controlled by the bourgeoisie.
As Harold Wilson said.

When they come for me, I'll fight for me.

Waah! Violent revolution to kill the Romanovs is horribly stupid on a practical level, since there's absolutely no reason the same standards can't be used against you!

I don't talk often enough to be insufferable, and when I do I just put people to sleep. I have no reason to fear a policy of assaulting the insufferable.

Are you merely pretending to be retarded?
Are you implying lying should be illegal?
Your tolerance or intolerance is irrelevant, particularly since you can extremely easily not read those posts/threads. Either someone has a right or they don't, your feelings on the matter are irrelevant.
Spamming isn't speech, it's effectively the exact opposite and only serves to disrupt.

Just because you have no free speech in Europe doesn't mean it's some absurd thing only Americans believe in. Your standards are exactly what creates and allows anti-blasphemy laws. How the fuck can you think attacking someone for words they said is an appropriate or legitimate response? By that standards insane Christfags and Muslims can attack someone for insulting their retarded religion.

Yes, that's exactly what happened when the Vanguard Party was given or allowed to have all their power. Thank you for proving my point.
I find you insufferable. By your standards if I gave you a black eye and a cracked rib then I'm completely not at fault.

yeah, im the same way. i've had this same encounter OP.

strangely enough, liberals don't realize how much their speech is protected by the state. that's whats fucking bullshit about liberals – they preach pacifism and all this free market horse shit, and most of the time don't have the intellectual stamina to back up their views. so, really, bourgeois free speech they will defend while simultaneously acknowledging how shit like the smith act, sedition act, etc., explicitly allow their ideology to claim a monopoly on public discourse.

so, sure, im """radically""" pro free speech, if that makes sense, aside from maybe the really truly degenerate shit like cp and other related topics, im very anti-censorship.

in fact, i confronted a liberla friend of mine about htis, and they literally didn't have a response when i brought up stuff like the mccarthy era. they pretty much argued it was needed to preserve liberal ideals or something.

so, in other words, they are totally in favor of ""authoritarianism"" when liberals do it, but if ANYONE else does it, then you're a tyrannical genocidal psychopath amirite?

my objection to pedo shit is based on the fact that these kids don't have developed brains and likely aren't fully able to make a conscious decision. i mean, we could probably argue for a long time about a particular point a kid is fully able to consent, but i certainly of the mindset that going "younger" isn't a logical response to the question of "when" the appropriate time to convince someone to have sex with you is.

I think, to make a long story short, this is something that needs to be discussed by the larger majority and isn't something one person can decide. And I hear you on the soccer mom propaganda, i think society in general has demonized sex and made most sex taboo, especially when it concerns young and old relationships. But I think the debate is muddied by people who are pedos and then try to act like it is their god given right to have sex with kids or something. Not saying that is YOU, but i am just saying these types certainly don't help the "pedo cause" if such a thing existed in the first place.

Just my 2 cents i 'spose

This fucking meme again
I never said that: from my point of view, the state shouldn't stick its nose in people's business.
If you talk shit, you're getting it back: the law enforcement shouldn't interfere here.
I already stated that im in favour of putting fines and regulations if someone talks about commiting acts of violence against someone else/a specific group of people.
This, however, has nothing to do with free speech; you should be free to criticize the state at any time.
Going around and spewing your nazi rethoric isn't free speech: you're just doing political propaganda, and if the worker's party is currently ruling the country, the i dont see it should tollerate propaganda that goes aganist everything the party is trying to build.

Unlike you, who is actually retarded?
It already is you fucking dipshit. Libel, slander, and a whole host of laws about false advertising etc etc are testament to that.
Then why is my support required you inhuman fuckrod.
OOOOOH so speech isn't speech when you call it disruptive. You're absolutely worthless.

you're some kind of anarchist fag aren't you
USSR was an unambiguous improvement on the Russian Empire.
I genuinely invite you to try.
I won't bother filling the icebox.

Free speech doesn't mean free of consequences, especially when it literally calls for people to be put in ovens.
Basically, this

remember, at the end of the day, the bourgeois state is our enemy. They are definitely going to turn against the left once given the chance. empowering the bourgeois state is always a bad idea.

It definitely comes off that way, i'd say yes. i mean, i'm not saying you are, but the whole 'social fascism' meme wasn't a meme at one point and widely accepted by the comintern. so i wouldn't be surprised if many a socdem became a fascist at one point.

i guess i think of socdems just more as confused fake socialists tho. like, they still hate fascists, and centrists, but simultaneously are afriad to go full commie, so they're always doomed to failure. it's a weird position with no real long term end goal it seems.

oh this is too freaking based

the long term end goal is to make capitalism tolerable until communists take over.
communists always drag their feet. if i read theory, 10 years from now i'll have done nothing with it. if i get elected to the local council, at least i can make sure the bins are collected on time.

In Germany, where free speech in the American sense isn't a thing. The office for the protection of the constitution probably spends more time going after leftists and kurdish activists than Nazis. If a similar thing existed in the US it would definitely become a deep state organ obsessed with hunting down 'russian agents' and 'left wing extremists'

The law arbitrarily defending people or ignoring crimes is usually considered corruption.
That has nothing to do with free speech. It limits it to such an extent it becomes meaningless. Additionally, what happens when criticizing the state could be considered Islamphobic when it's a theocratic dictatorship, or racist when its ruled by a specific demographic?
And I suppose going around and spewing my heathen/kaffir/commie rhetoric isn't free speech either?

Lying per se isn't illegal, only lying about certain things, and those certain things are illegal precisely because they have real and immediate consequences.
We're not talking about your support, we're talking about fundamental principles.
By definition it's not speech because it's not trying to communicate anything. Spammers aren't sharing their opinions, they're trying to prevent others from sharing theirs.
That doesn't disprove my previous point.
I'm not trying to play tough guy on the internet. I'm trying to make a point about your feels-based arbitrary beliefs and their consequences.

checked

As an anarchist, I am very much for freedom of expression. Anarchists have fought and been killed because of being pro freedom of expression.
It just happens to be that, if you go into public and say "I'm going to kill all the gays" and since the gays don't wish die they then kill you first to defend themselves, no one should be surprised. You got to express your belief just fine. Everybody heard you.
Going around policing thoughts and expressions ideas and speech is bad and should be fought against. That just leads to crazy dystopian doublethink echo chambers around the whole of society. Freedom of expression should be protected. If you use freedom of expression to tell everybody you're going to murder someone, and they murder you first, well, uh….I honestly don't know what you were expecting.

The thing is threats have never been considered part of free speech and no one would fault someone from acting like a threat was genuine unless it was obviously not. Saying that you wish all gays died isn't a threat, just a shitty opinion, but should be allowed regardless.

i'm not trying ot shit on you, was just kind of sharing my autist view of it. i used to be a staunch socdem and deeply sympathetic to the dems… nowadays not so much, i just detest the entire system but to each his own i guess

if its any consolation, i would take socdem version of capitalism over ancapistan any day of the fucking week

Advocating anti-social behavior, such as encouraging 16-year-olds to fist fight neo-Nazis because muh abstract injustice, isn't really free speech.

i whole heartily disagree with this notion that free speech can only refer to government not being able to mess with people.

in order for true free speech to be achieved the government should also protect those of unpopular opinions (yes even Nazis) from physical violence from 3rd parties like antifa.

i think what most people on this board don't get is that bashing the fash is what lead to the rise of Nazi Germany and is what is causing the authoritarian right to rise in the US and Europe. if we really want to stop them than you need to have a sit down with storm fags and see if you can win them over through a peaceful debate. even if they don't repent, no harm should come to them.

it also saddens me to see that what was once the only true far left platform that hadn't been infected with the SJW virus is now deferring to the shitty "freeze peach only means no gov censorship so i'm allowed to shank and flag people i disagree with politically" argument. you should all feel ashamed of yourselves for allowing yourselves to become r/FULLCOMMUNISM.

...

mmm tasty new pasta

...

Free speech is a codeword for handing over your country to fascists.
In an open debate, fascists will ALWAYS win. Not because they're right, but because they appeal to the base human nature. The real world is a lot more complicated than that, though.
So yes, we should be against freeze peach. But this is to protect them for their own good.

...

That was caused by the humiliating defeat after World War I combined with Jewish decadence in Berlin.

oh the irony

just because Hitler said it doesn't make it true. not everyone has a full understanding of what could have caused their downfall early on. and IMO Hitler is wrong. because if people had just ignored his movement outright instead of trying to brawl with him. the storm fags would have never gained the mass support that they had got.

I mean just look at how much sympathetic propaganda utilises the violence of antifa to garner public sympathy.

furthermore hitler didn't even come close to wining the election, he was appointed because 'trade unions' who you would expect to be on our side nowadays. along with them hitler managed to gain emergency powers by lucking out with a convenient fire burning down parliament

You're just dumb.

Not really, hitler's jailtime was enormous in his eventually success. he's not wrong, but I don't know how right he is.

Completely ignorant. Just read even Shirer or Evans.

that's not an argument.

the problem with "alternative histery" and what if scenarios is that they are just educated guesses so we can never know how right we are

>Just read even Shirer or Evans.

seriously, this is the stupidest, laziest comment you could possibly make. I don't know what it is about the left, but the stupid fucking people reduce every argument to "read this entire book".

also a reminder that antifaschista aktion undeniably helped hitler rise to power, and no historian has ever seriously mentioned antifa action as a regulating force against capitalism/fascism

Yeah, the point isn't "read a book." The point is that he knows nothing about the rise of the Nazis in Germany.

The dipshit /r/socialism argument :

It's terrible. They're stalinists, if you want to die in obscurity because you refused to call a wealthy woman 'xer', by all means giggle about freeze peaches.

Nobody should be censored or arrested for having an extremely unlikeable opinion. Free speech doesn't mean "I can say whatever I want and not be criticized for my beliefs" it just means "I can say whatever I want." Nothing is safe from ridicule, whether it's religion, race or issues that make people feel uncomfortable.

Antifa should focus on fighting explicitly nazi and ethno nationalist groups. The right only seems to win when antifa attacks freeze peach loving trolls like Milo or sophists like Peterson.

That's because the anti-free speech people are from /r/FULLCOMMUNISM. We've had a huge influx of redditors bringing their shitty retarded opinions and we can't let their ignorance sway the board.

You're just someone bad at arguing while having an extremely negative viewpoint of the majority of people. Fascist rhetoric is attractive because people see that there's a problem with the system and the "Left" pretends it's related to retarded socjus shit. When you're unemployed or in fear of losing your job, you're going to believe the guy who says it's because of open borders and free trade, and it's all because of the Globalist Jews, because the other guy says you're just a fucking white male who's problems don't matter and that we need to focus on the glass ceiling. It's not base human nature to somehow hate brown people or to love a big authoritarian state fucking everyone, it's base human nature to want a fucking solution and to take the only one you see. If you present a solution that appeals to their ethos as well as their logos, especially when their ethos is much more conducive to Leftism than it is to Rightism, you're going to win. For fucks sake, the two most popular presidential candidates were candidates whose platforms revolved already fixing the problems, one with gidsmedats and another with american first and bringing back the jobs; neither of them were remotely close to Fascism.
Either you're extremely stupid to a harmful extent, or you're a Holla Forumstard falseflagging.

To a degree. This kind of thinking is fine in a small-ish community, but we are living in the age of the internet. A million people thousands of miles away might suddenly be mobilized against you because of your dumb opinion. The state should step in and ensure that none of this kind of shit happens. Retaliation for speech should only ever be directly personal.
Punch a guy who speaks to you, help get a guy you work with fired. Now, we're in a situation where online mobs descend on people out of the blue for speech, and that has to be curbed, even for dumb nazi speech. Otherwise we enter into the most vicious war of all against all over any kind of difference of opinion, which is exactly one of the things the state ideally exists to avoid.

Hello Holla Forums
Drink p[etr]ol