As Yuri Bezmenov predicted in the 1980s, this conversation would eventually happen. Sometime before the end of civilization as we know it. It seems we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
And you might think I'm joking, or spot the obvious flaw in complaining about the problems with hate speech:
Who decides? Not you. SJWs have perfected the art of hate speech, and defining it, and they're enforcing it with their fists and baseball bats.
That's our guide. In my controversial view, some of what they've said should be deemed illegal.
And a Black Lives Matter activist said he's "fully hell bent on inciting riots everywhere we go."
A combination of barely legal lies, distortions (legal), emotionally-charged accusations (not a crime) aimed at justifying a violent response. Such as Francesca Ramsay saying that you're free to speak, but not free from the consequences. Offensive speech is deemed a "micro-aggression."
But you can't make LIES illegal, can you? How would politicians get elected?
The idea that by speaking out of turn, someone else "hit you first" is a lie. And it's an indirect way of permitting ordinary, non-psychopathic people to strike first when you say something "offensive." In fact, that's what offensive means. That you've been attacked.
Hence the yelling. The shouting. The threats and violence and murder. Yep. Murder.
A preacher took a baseball bat to the head for wrongthink, and the crowd cheered.
WrongThink Now Punishable By Attempted Murder, Apparently
Just for having the wrong opinion. And his opinion doesn't matter. It's not something you'd probably agree with, but it was treated
He had a camera on him. Broad daylight. Surrounded by people. It was no protection against the power of hatred for people saying wrong ideas.
This was attempted murder with a deadly weapon by a 19-year-old girl.
The response was more hate speech, justifying the felony.
If you think it through, the word "offensive", as it's used today, is already intended to provoke these physical attacks, mob justice, and to justify using immoral tactics in self defense.
Nobody ever started a genocide by saying, "Hey, guys. Let's go commit genocide." They did it by de-humanizing the filthy feminist vermin who deserve extermination and rape. See how that works? Technically, not illegal.
I haven't even said "We ought to pass a law to gas X group of people." It's only considered hate when it's aimed at someone you like.
Anyway, the fundamentals of free speech aren't being taught to the masses anymore. Hatred of free speech is being taught instead. Which subverts the core values you'd like to defend.
But instead, the only thing being defended is the WRONG hate speech. By who?
By people like us. You and me. Defenders of freedom and liberty and justice for all.
We're idealists. Not pragmatists. And we're programmed to be that way. Not every country tolerates this bullshit. Not every country is vulnerable to subversion. The United States is vulnerable BECAUSE of our freedoms.
Subversive tactics aren't illegal where speech is free. You can overthrow a country by pot-stirring, trolling, race-baiting, and never even risk being deported.
These micro-incitements (another word which can be used to justify striking first, admittedly, but for now it's legal) in ideologies, religions, cultures, and movements like social justice transform masses of people into a danger that threatens you as surely as a man with a knife waiting for you in the shadows. (Twisted, emotionally charged metaphor.)
Your family is at the mercy of power social justice people in positions of supreme authority over what you can say and do. If you want to keep your job and have something to eat and a roof over your head, you must obey their social justice laws. (Making you seem meek and them powerful.)
Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" speech obviously did the trick. It led to people taking up arms before the shackles were on their feet or the noose was around their neck.
Here's something inflammatory enough to stimulate people to speak up, but it's not specifically demonizing a group of people, equating them with a filthy pestilence of cockroaches, or getting anyone killed.
It's provocative, but not hate speech. So far, hate speech has been acted upon only when it's aimed at certain groups. Evalion's channel celebrated Hitler's birthday, for example. She said "I hate x, y, z." But that's quite different than saying "you should hate x, y, z."
It's different than someone using "I don't like Jews" satirically:
From the context of the song, the intent is obviously the opposite of what he's saying. In fact, the context is the whole point of the song.
But Patrick Henry spoke in the context of "We're already in danger. I'm going to fight."
Subversive stuff. And in his case, it led to a prosperous, liberal, relatively free-market democracy.
Rise up against the Northern States, and you're evil racist redneck bastards.
Rise up against King George, and you're revolutionaries fighting for freedom.
So far as I know, in the history of revolutions I'm aware of, people have never been able to stop a conquering army by being nicer to them.
But fascists have spent decades drumming up support for less freedoms. More expenses. More subjugation of the most productive people. Technically, Asian men are the most productive in the U.S., but I believe the biggest chunk of the tax revenue comes from highly productive white guys.
And social justice has made it clear that we don't have a place in their new regime, other than as obedient, silent wage slaves.
But look. If we don't take subversive speech seriously, then we pay the ultimate price of losing the last of our freedoms in the few remaining countries that still have any.
If you don't define what hate speech is, what subversive speech is, what values can be violently defended, as the Declaration of Independence did, and allow people to act in self-defense against these micro-incitements, then you get a whole lot of hair-trigger mobs willing to shoot first and ask questions later.
Instead of SJWs living in any fear of arrest, incarceration, or sanction, they're free to criticize and hate people, as long as it's the conservative straight white males.
If you criticize, ridicule, mock, or hate anyone else, you are subject to sanctions, violent reprisals, ostracism.
Just because the thought police don't wear uniforms to silence your speech, doesn't mean they won't beat you to death in a bathroom, as happened to one girl recently, who went to the bathroom to "settle" an issue with a group of girls.
Meaning a conversation had led a group of girls who were willing to kill her. i.e. Whether you like it or not, a 16-year-old girl was murdered for saying something wrong.
But that's not an abridgment of her freedom, right? Because those are the actions of thought policing individuals. Not like a hysterical social justice mob, stirred up by an incitement to violence.
"Remember your motherfucking skin tone"
Which is at least as SJW as "we're trying to make a home here."
There's some been some resistance about getting to the root of the problem. Actually, there's been an insane amount of resistance to that idea.
As if Hitler were about to issue orders to a million of his troops to invade Poland or bomb Britain, but you refused on principle not to intercept it because reasons.
It has nothing to do with systematic hate campaigns like Tuck Frump, which, at the very least, should have ended with its producers in prison, if not hanged for treason.
(If you look into it, you'll see who's financing these campaigns, who benefits from corrupting the media, installing censorship. It's not a secret.)
The indoctrinated child soldiers, the modern-day thought police act just as pompous and superior as the worst examples of cops, but without any of the self-restraint.
We know for a fact that feminism doesn't care about real rape at all.
Its behavior shows it only cares about silencing your right to criticize the most dangerous, violent, subversive groups of people in the world.
But there are consequences, right?
Nobody was arrested until after the autopsy, but the suspects were suspended from school.
Even though the sa
Is this video related to Amy Joyner's murder? I don't see how that's possible if the girls were suspended after the fight. And she doesn't look like the girl in the video. And one other thing...
It's pretty hard to forget. In other words, this video (which is impossible to keep under wraps) is now being used as an incitement to violence against white girls who are being seen as somehow responsible for the black girl's death. If so, the person who posted the video is a liar who should probably be in jail for committing the crime of inciting violence against white girls.
But do you believe white people are systematically orchestrating the death of black people? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. But a theory that's taught in schools by students to students.
But our system of justice apparently doesn't work that way. I can blame anyone I want, spin any narrative I want, and claim that guys like Mark Zuckerberg are behind all the racial hatred aimed aimed at certain groups, but not others.
It may not be polite to say that some mentally retarded violent mobs made up of mentally retarded gangsters can't sort out right from wrong when they're infantalized, or that they're already WAY too much for the police to handle, but look at the freeways being shut down.
I've heard two of the three girls in the murder mob who assassinated a girl in a bathroom face up to one year in a comfy "girl jail".
Not like the hard labor and long sentences a man would get, right? Even if, by some miracle, a jury convicts them after they play victim, and even if they get the full sentence, they might be out in 6 months with good behavior.
Or even been present?
They say it's a fight over a boy. What would that conversation have been? I'd imagine it was something like, "He can date who he wants." One student said Amy didn't believe in fighting.
Neither of these are very feminist idea, these days. But it's not a secret that ugly, violent girls hate pretty, peaceful girls. And they're willing to create an ugly, violent society to get what they want.
When they come for you, the tranquilizers won't act fast enough.
But it's no skin off my nose. I just thought you might want to know why your "liberal values" are a weakness that leads to your society's destruction.
One way or another, free speech has an expiration date. Whether you clamp down on it in time, (which you probably won't), or whether you live under the thumb of an Orwellian, oppressive social justice regime (practically inevitable), free speech is going away.
If you didn't speak up in time, and held your tongue out of fear, then free speech was never yours to begin with.
You may have spotted the obvious flaws in what I propose, which is to actually enforce existing laws, and actually arrest violent criminals, but I've spotted the obvious flaw in free speech that subverts our values and turns them upside down.
So there you go. Free speech versus speech-led baseball bat mobs. Let's see who wins.
The clock is ticking.
As much as I support free speech, you've got to admit it has an Achilles heel there.
These micro-incitements (another word which can be used to justify striking first, admittedly, but for now it's legal) in ideologies, religions, cultures, and movements like social justice transform masses of people into a danger that threatens you as surely as a man with a knife waiting for you in the shadows. (Twisted, emotionally charged metaphor.)
Your family is at the mercy of power social justice people in positions of supreme authority over what you can say and do. If you want to keep your job and have something to eat and a roof over your head, you must obey their social justice laws. (Making you seem meek and them powerful.)
Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" speech obviously did the trick. It led to people taking up arms before the shackles were on their feet or the noose was around their neck.
Here's something inflammatory enough to stimulate people to speak up, but it's not specifically demonizing a group of people, equating them with a filthy pestilence of cockroaches, or getting anyone killed.
It's provocative, but not hate speech. So far, hate speech has been acted upon only when it's aimed at certain groups. Evalion's channel celebrated Hitler's birthday, for example. She said "I hate x, y, z." But that's quite different than saying "you should hate x, y, z."
It's different than someone using "I don't like Jews" satirically:
From the context of the song, the intent is obviously the opposite of what he's saying. In fact, the context is the whole point of the song.
But Patrick Henry spoke in the context of "We're already in danger. I'm going to fight."
Subversive stuff. And in his case, it led to a prosperous, liberal, relatively free-market democracy.
So maybe it's not whether you incite violence, but who's the one doing it.
Rise up against the Northern States, and you're evil racist redneck bastards.
Rise up against King George, and you're revolutionaries fighting for freedom.
So far as I know, in the history of revolutions I'm aware of, people have never been able to stop a conquering army by being nicer to them.
But fascists have spent decades drumming up support for less freedoms. More expenses. More subjugation of the most productive people. Technically, Asian men are the most productive in the U.S., but I believe the biggest chunk of the tax revenue comes from highly productive white guys.
And social justice has made it clear that we don't have a place in their new regime, other than as obedient, silent wage slaves.
But look. If we don't take subversive speech seriously, then we pay the ultimate price of losing the last of our freedoms in the few remaining countries that still have any.
If you don't define what hate speech is, what subversive speech is, what values can be violently defended, as the Declaration of Independence did, and allow people to act in self-defense against these micro-incitements, then you get a whole lot of hair-trigger mobs willing to shoot first and ask questions later.
Instead of SJWs living in any fear of arrest, incarceration, or sanction, they're free to criticize and hate people, as long as it's the conservative straight white males.
If you criticize, ridicule, mock, or hate anyone else, you are subject to sanctions, violent reprisals, ostracism.
Just because the thought police don't wear uniforms to silence your speech, doesn't mean they won't beat you to death in a bathroom, as happened to one girl recently, who went to the bathroom to "settle" an issue with a group of girls.
Meaning a conversation had led a group of girls who were willing to kill her. i.e. Whether you like it or not, a 16-year-old girl was murdered for saying something wrong.
But that's not an abridgment of her freedom, right? Because those are the actions of thought policing individuals. Not like a hysterical social justice mob, stirred up by an incitement to violence.
"Remember your motherfucking skin tone"
Which is at least as SJW as "we're trying to make a home here."
There's some been some resistance about getting to the root of the problem. Actually, there's been an insane amount of resistance to that idea.
As if Hitler were about to issue orders to a million of his troops to invade Poland or bomb Britain, but you refused on principle not to intercept it because reasons.
But in today's social justice world, the Nazi soldiers are innocent. And Hitler is innocent. And the idea that anyone is issuing orders to kill is a conspiracy theory.
It has nothing to do with systematic hate campaigns like Tuck Frump, which, at the very least, should have ended with its producers in prison, if not hanged for treason.
(If you look into it, you'll see who's financing these campaigns, who benefits from corrupting the media, installing censorship. It's not a secret.)
The indoctrinated child soldiers, the modern-day thought police act just as pompous and superior as the worst examples of cops, but without any of the self-restraint.
They apparently weren't taught about the consequences of physically assaulting someone.
They're like raging animals who can't be reasoned with and must be chained, caged, incarcerated by the authorities. But there are no authorities who'll do it until after the murders, attempted murders, and assaults. These child soldiers are getting younger all the time, and when it comes to this stuff, they're virtually immune to prosecution.
(And if someone hates you enough to kill you, then I guess they hate you enough to make a false rape claim. Which is what #ListenAndBelieve is really all about, IMO.)
We know for a fact that feminism doesn't care about real rape at all.
Its behavior shows it only cares about silencing your right to criticize the most dangerous, violent, subversive groups of people in the world.
But there are consequences, right?
Nobody was arrested until after the autopsy, but the suspects were suspended from school.
Even though the sa
 |
| A video posted on Facebook, of this blonde girl being brutally beaten by black students |
I remember seeing it about a week before Amy's murder.
It's pretty hard to forget. In other words, this video (which is impossible to keep under wraps) is now being used as an incitement to violence against white girls who are being seen as somehow responsible for the black girl's death. If so, the person who posted the video is a liar who should probably be in jail for committing the crime of inciting violence against white girls.
But do you believe white people are systematically orchestrating the death of black people? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. But a theory that's taught in schools by students to students.
But our system of justice apparently doesn't work that way. I can blame anyone I want, spin any narrative I want, and claim that guys like Mark Zuckerberg are behind all the racial hatred aimed aimed at certain groups, but not others.
Oh. And it also leads to months-long riots.
It may not be polite to say that some mentally retarded violent mobs made up of mentally retarded gangsters can't sort out right from wrong when they're infantalized, or that they're already WAY too much for the police to handle, but look at the freeways being shut down.
I've heard two of the three girls in the murder mob who assassinated a girl in a bathroom face up to one year in a comfy "girl jail".
Not like the hard labor and long sentences a man would get, right? Even if, by some miracle, a jury convicts them after they play victim, and even if they get the full sentence, they might be out in 6 months with good behavior.
What if a man had murdered a 16 year old girl in a high school bathroom?
Or even been present?
They say it's a fight over a boy. What would that conversation have been? I'd imagine it was something like, "He can date who he wants." One student said Amy didn't believe in fighting.
Neither of these are very feminist idea, these days. But it's not a secret that ugly, violent girls hate pretty, peaceful girls. And they're willing to create an ugly, violent society to get what they want.
When they come for you, the tranquilizers won't act fast enough.
But it's no skin off my nose. I just thought you might want to know why your "liberal values" are a weakness that leads to your society's destruction.
One way or another, free speech has an expiration date. Whether you clamp down on it in time, (which you probably won't), or whether you live under the thumb of an Orwellian, oppressive social justice regime (practically inevitable), free speech is going away.
If you didn't speak up in time, and held your tongue out of fear, then free speech was never yours to begin with.
You may have spotted the obvious flaws in what I propose, which is to actually enforce existing laws, and actually arrest violent criminals, but I've spotted the obvious flaw in free speech that subverts our values and turns them upside down.
So there you go. Free speech versus speech-led baseball bat mobs. Let's see who wins.
The clock is ticking.
