On the use of violence against those peacefully expressing views with which one disagrees.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Incitement to violence is already illegal, don't need to ban Nazi and ISIS flags to do that.
/shrugs

As if the law actually protects us from anything, the only protection is resiliency, trying to outlaw evil is pretty silly, it's illegal to be evil?  That's a house of cards incarnate.

[Dougie93]

I don't actually rule out the possibility that the fascists are going to win this war, Accelerationism is a thing, and it's working.

I'm not a fascist, but I am an Accelerationist, so I understand what they are doing and why the namby pamby nanny state is impotent and defenseless in the face of it.

[Argus]

54 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Indeed - freedom of speech to campaign for the destruction of Jews and non-Muslims.

We already have hate speech laws against 'campaigning for anyone's destruction. They're intrusive enough without giving freedom to Nazi-like thugs to attack anyone they consider to be spouting the wrong type of political or social views.

[Dougie93]

As if the Nazis need your permission to take their freedom to mass murder, liberty is what is granted by external authority, freedom is what you take for yourself by your own means.

[Dougie93]

It's like Norway is a leftist nanny state to the extreme,  and yet Anders Breivik blew up a building and mass murdered 82 kids, and pretty sure that was illegal.

That was just one Nazi.  

Now imagine millions of them.  

It's been a long time since they walked the earth in force, so the bourgeois internet bogeyman version of the Nazi is nowhere near as scary as the real thing.

They put Hitler in jail, that just made him stronger, the Nazis didn't seize power by force, they were elected, people didn't see them as evil, the Nazis are messianic, they were the saviors, when everything else went tits up.

If/when the liberal elites drop the ball, the Nazis are waiting in the wings to pounce, and when they do, they will grow exponentially and it will happen fast.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Dougie93

[QuebecOverCanada]

6 hours ago, dialamah said:

Trump has mentioned making anti-fa a terror organization.  An opinion I have come across is that because anti-fa isn't an organization, but rather people who share an idea, naming anti-fa a terror organization is a way to target left-wing people who openly oppose the current government.  Is this opinion Credible or Conspiritard?

The same thing was said about targeting the Islamic State by the Islamists. They said targetting ISIS was targetting all Muslims, just like now the radical Leftists say the same thing about those who oppose Antifa.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Doesn't context matter too?  If someone flies a swastika in India, it may be seen as a symbol of good luck and prosperity, in Isreal an overt statement of an intent/desire to exterminate Jews.  In the West, our understanding of the swastika is closer to Isreal's context than India's.  I don't see how it's any less of a threat,  to Jews especially, than saying "I want to kill Jews".

A swastika is a symbol of Nazi Germany to most people, and I'm aware of the connotations of the image.  It's not an explicit threat though.  It's a symbol of racism and hatred, that's all.

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

The same thing was said about targeting the Islamic State by the Islamists. They said targetting ISIS was targetting all Muslims, just like now the radical Leftists say the same thing about those who oppose Antifa.

If you look closely at Daesh, you will notice that they are actually Westerners who went to the ME reactionary to the radical leftist takeover of governments here.

They started off as AQI, but then they morphed into a kind of Islamic terrorist foreign legion which was Western kids rejecting the West.

[QuebecOverCanada]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

If you look closely at Daesh, you will notice that they are actually Westerners who went to the ME reactionary to the radical leftist takeover of governments here.

They started off as AQI, but then they morphed into a kind of Islamic terrorist foreign legion which was Western kids rejecting the West.

Western kids? Looks at the statistics, most of them were 2nd generation of poorly integrated immigrants. Many in Belgium were from parents who were immigrants from Morocco or Algeria, even Tunisia. And many from the Caucasus went to ISIS, so did many Indonesians. The Islamic Cancer even spread to the Philippines, where ISIS took over a town which was razed to the ground by the governmental forces.

Don't kid yourself. It's an islamic problem first and foremost.

[Dougie93]

Daesh is also cousin to the Incels

If you look at how Daesh actually pays their troops, the coin of the realm is young girls to be their sex slaves, that's what most of them went to war for, it's Islamic Incelter Skelter.

[QuebecOverCanada]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Daesh is also cousin to the Incels

If you look at how Daesh actually pays their troops, the coin of the realm is young girls to be their sex slaves, that's what most of them went to war for, it's Islamic Incelter Skelter.

Islamic countries live more insecurity, live more empoverished, and all live under brutal dictatorships or a resemblance of a democracy.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Islamic countries live more insecurity, live more empoverished, and all live under brutal dictatorships or a resemblance of a democracy.

That has nothing to do with Daesh, Daesh was born in American POW camps in Iraq as AQI, was the Americans bringing freedom to Iraq which opened the door for Daesh, Saddam Hussein would have liquidated them with ease, the brutal dictatorships are not vulnerable to Daesh, the Americans made Daesh, although not intentionally.

[Dougie93]

What happened was the Americans centralized all these different groups of prisoners into camps, but the inmates started running the asylum, the Americans could contain them, but they couldn't control them, so it was like Islamic Jihadist Hogan's Heroes,  where the prisoners did whatever they wanted inside the walls of the prison, and what they did was start recruiting and training and organizing,  so the POW camps became breeder reactors which churned out Daesh.

Saddam Hussien was gone, Iraq was fractured, soon as Obama pulled out, there was nothing standing in the way of Daesh and they rolled the Iraqi army with ease.  That's when recruits starting to come to them from the West, to join the Islamic Incelter Skelter party.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

When they capture Deash prisoners and interrogate them as to why they are doing this, they don't say Islam, they say they don't like gays, they don't like trannies, they don't like uppity women who wont put out, they don't like all the rules in the West, with Daesh, they could live the dream, do whatever the f*ck they wanted, and nobody could stop them.

Again, Incelter Skelter, Islamic wing.

It is toxic masculinity, but it's toxic because it is reactionary to the enforced feminization being imposed in the West.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens apex predator male, you can call him toxic all you want, but that won't save you in the end, only the B-52's can stop him.

Well over 12,000 sorties so far, that is a lot of bombs, only the Americans are capable of delivering that sort of firepower, and still Daesh ain't dead yet, so they are tough, very tough, it's taking a superpower to bring them to heel.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Dougie93

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Yes you could.  When I earlier said I drew the line at actual violence, that would include a threat to kill.  A swastika is not a threat to kill. 

You don't think a Swastika is a direct stated threat against Jews ?  You're one of those people who denies subjectivity aren't you ? 

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You don't think a Swastika is a direct stated threat against Jews ?  You're one of those people who denies subjectivity aren't you ? 

No, I'm one of those people who believe in freedom of speech, no matter how objectionable.

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

No, I'm one of those people who believe in freedom of speech, no matter how objectionable.

So you're basically an American at heart, the First Amendment being first for a reason, as it is the core of American Exceptionalism.

The purpose of the Second Amendment after all, is simply to protect the First Amendment.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

So you're basically an American at heart, the First Amendment being first for a reason, as it is the core of American Exceptionalism.

The purpose of the Second Amendment after all, is simply to protect the First Amendment.

I definitely prefer the american attitude towards freedom of speech.

Edited August 19, 2019 by bcsapper

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I definitely prefer the american attitude towards feedom of speech.

They are the only ones who defend and uphold it, American Exceptionalism, it's the only free country in the end.

Everybody else is a confiscatory police state of one sort or another.

Hence why the Flight to Quality, the source of all their wealth and power, which is towards Constitution Avenue in the District of Columbia.

The War of Independence was the war for property rights, as without property rights, you cannot secure any other rights at all.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Dougie93

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

No, I'm one of those people who believe in freedom of speech, no matter how objectionable.

That's beside the point.  The point here is that you seem to think it's very easy to define what is a threat and what isn't.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's beside the point.  The point here is that you seem to think it's very easy to define what is a threat and what isn't.

What I find a threat is actually beside the point.  I differ from you, obviously, and there's no reason to imagine either of us is the definitive authority on the subject.

 

[Dougie93]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

What I find a threat is actually beside the point.  I differ from you, obviously, and there's no reason to imagine either of us is the definitive authority on the subject.

Exactly, it's a red herring, the Jews not feeling threatened by some symbol is not sufficient cause to allow speech banning short of direct incitement to violence, Brandenburg v. Ohio.

In order to be the land of the free, it must be the home of the brave.

[Yzermandius19]

22 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Exactly, it's a red herring, the Jews not feeling threatened by some symbol is not sufficient cause to allow speech banning short of direct incitement to violence, Brandenburg v. Ohio.

In order to be the land of the free, it must be the home of the brave.

Can't be the land of the free, or the home of the brave, if you're the land of ban all speech that could potentially be considered offensive.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Can't be the land of the free, or the home of the brave, if you're the land of ban all speech that could potentially be considered offensive.

Canada is neither the home of the brave nor the free.  Canada is a reaction to it.  A recoiling from it.  An Victorian anachronism clinging to its archaic British Imperialism.

 

 

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada is neither the home of the brave nor the free.  Canada is a reaction to it.  A recoiling from it.  An Victorian anachronism clinging to its archaic British Imperialism.

 

 

Eventually, even the slaves clinging to Archaic British Imperialism will be freed. The Canadian Iron Curtain can't hold American freedom out forever, no matter how Anti-American reactionary those behind the curtain are. That attitude will just bring down the Iron Curtain even faster, Accelerationism FTW.

God Bless America.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Yzermandius19