Why do you guys get upset when people call you racists, xenophobes, bigots, sexists, and so on?

Why do you guys get upset when people call you racists, xenophobes, bigots, sexists, and so on?

I mean, it's true, might as well take it with pride.

As I do. However there is a bit of hypocrisy from the left. Aren't you all supposed to be for freedom of speech and expression or only when it is in line with your views?

Sadly there is still a bit of power behind those words and discussion can immediately be ended by
>omg you're a racist etc

Because it's hypocritical and annoying.

Personally I just let everyone have their own views and opinions on things including myself. If they don't try to shove their beliefs down my throat and tell me I'm wrong. I will be polite and simply disagree with them.

I for one don't care; the words leftists use have no purchase with me and are used dishonestly for agendas that I'm not onboard with and know will always fail.

And anyways, I'm a nativist. I am pro-indigenous, whether it be Native American or native European. I'm fine with some race-mixing or immigration to reasonable levels, but think that policies that encourage it en masse are regrettable because they make the world less interesting and erode at sense of community for everyone respectively.

This is a new outlook. Racism doesn't come into play there.

As for prejudice though, all people have it. Some people dislike white, poor southerners, some dislike coastal Jewish liberals, some dislike, I dunno, a nearby ethnicity in Vietnam. I am not particularly fond of Muslims, or Arabs in general. I don't like how they treat women. I don't like their invasive attitude and outlook. I don't like their aggressivness and violence. I think anyone who overlooks those qualities is a fool. I don't care if that's 'xenophobic' by leftist standards, I think I'm right. If leftists can call conservative 'whites', or straight males, toxic cultures, toxic people, then I can say the same about cultures I see as destructive and toxic. Islam is toxic. At best it should be contained to its countries of origin.

I have to block the accusations and avoid controversy in order to keep my job.

That's pretty much it

Because often the person saying those things is a complete hypocrite.

Words only have as much power as you give them. "Omg you are so racist" your reply " that maybe true and I would agree with you if you refuted any of my arguments and facts I have presented"

Discussion/criticism does not equal prejudice or any -ism

I take offence at the disregard shown to the English language and logic.

You left out intent; all stories have intent.
The intent of free speech is unrestricted communication. The intent of hate speech is to overpower and silence.
What you see as hypocrisy is just confusion: you have equivocated information and the intent to inform with intimidation and the intent to silence.

Ebonics is just awful on the ear

everyone is racist at least we are not hypocritical about it

This. The fucking WORLD is racist.

The left have all kinds of unreasonable, blanket prejudices.

They hate straight males, white males, Christians, poor white people, Southern white people, 'jocks', 'hillbillies' and 'hicks', married people, traditional people, dads, 'heteronormative' people, 'cis-gendered' people...

All people have prejudices.

Untalented 'critic' types hate people with talent. Etc.

>They hate straight males, white males, Christians, poor white people, Southern white people, 'jocks', 'hillbillies' and 'hicks', married people, traditional people, dads, 'heteronormative' people, 'cis-gendered' people.
>"The left" hates all of these

Source?

Hate speech is protected under freedom of speech. If you pass hate speech laws you are silencing people with different opinions of your own and you can't and don't support freedom of speech if you don't support hate speech. Sorry wish we lived in a world where everyone got along and people didn't say rude things but that isn't reality.

Go to Twitter and type "white male" into the search bar, shill.

>tfw I'm black and I hate your shit

Okay, got to twitter and type in nigger

By your logic I just proved that the right all hate black people

I'm not going to agree with the comment completely though partially true. The extremist of the left ( who are also the most vocal) are extremely anti white and anti cis and anti male. I'd even say some more moderate lefties are just as bad. But all of them isn't true. As for a source stick around a bit people post good stuff

There were thinkpieces and articles and tweats popping up every day during the second Obama term trashing straight white Christians, males, etc. Talking about male 'rape culture' (non-existent in the West, they should look at Islam if they want something real to criticize). Showing contempt for 'stupid hicks', losing country peoples' votes, and then going on twitter after the election results saying how much white working people need to die off. Talking about the end of 'male-ness', of the end of 'white-ness', etc. etc. Blacked threads trying to racebait with this notion of whites dying off (there's a leftist creep posting that shit on this board right now, and you ask for sources?).

>The intent of hate speech is to overpower and silence
So overpowering and silencing so-called "hate speech" would then, by your reasoning, also be hate speech. Your logic results in an endless recursion loop. Either speech is free or it's not, no matter how hard to try to mask it by changing the "intent" of the concept to suit your narrative.

Racist is a slur against white people

That persons argument was weak and they knew it

I don't. I get angry when I can't talk sense into people.
Calling someone a racist is not an argument, and when you point that out people shut you out completely. It's impossible to talk to people who call you a racist, it's like a cult.

I do nothing, because I know those words just to be empty. Usually I meet these accusations when I state my oppinions and some leftist gets triggered. So nothing new under the sun. Those cards are last they use when they run out of actual arguments.

I don't get mad when they call me those words, what bugs me is the fact that they think those words are insults

This guy gets it, not to mention it doesn't touch the argument you made

Wasn't really talking about the law. I am not a Platonist so absolutes don't exist for me. However, the intent of a society is some kind of mutual benefit that is somehow greater than a herd or a flock (that just in essence changes the environment from the wild to a little less wild). We get more working together, not just because there are more of us doing it, but because we can do things we cannot do alone. People forget that, and want to return to a selfish survival paradigm after gaining all that collective action accomplished, and that is somehow cheating.

Hateful speech, therefore, is not speech in that it doesn't inform.

The society that creates and gives the power you Platonically call "rights" doesn't have to tolerate actions that promote the dissolution of the society, but does have to protect the actions that do promote society, or there will be no reason to have the concept of society.

No, they are Marxists Fascists to whom the White man is the Jew.

I don't get offended, it's a sign of victory. Such "insults" are their last resort when they're on the ropes, which happens surprisingly quickly.

It's kind of funny how hard the left pushes for criminalizing "hate speech," as once you've debated a few of them it becomes exceedingly obvious that they need to do it because their narrative doesn't hold up to even passing scrutiny.

If your ideas can't survive on the open ideological market of free speech, if it needs protection from scrutiny in the form of criminalizing its opposition, then your idea is shit and deserves to die.

Was that question for you? Thanks for the answer that didn't actually answer anything

>racists
I do not believe every member of one race is superior to every member of any other race, therefore I am not a racist per definition

>xenophobes
Fear of Islam is not irrational therefore it is not a phobia, which by definition describes irrational fear of sometihng

>bigots
I am open to discuss and reconsider my views in light of new evidence, therefore I am not a bigot by definition

You know in your heart what the answer is

Exactly.

Racist is usually just a meaningless tool leftists try to use against their arbitrary opponent to try to gain some ill-founded 'moral advantage', when it's really just cynical language-policing used to enforce class distinctions (banishing 'hicks' and 'deplorables' from polite society), while also serving as a weaponized discourse that makes it so that every ethnicity and race can affirm and protect itself and its interests EXCEPT people of native European descent.

"Racist" at this point generally just refers to anyone who is sympathetic to the idea that maybe European 'whites' are an actual people with a right to acknowledge themselves and their heritage and survive as a legacy. Of course, for leftists, that's actually beyond the pale. It's a totally reasonable idea for any other group: black, Native American... but for 'whites', arguing that is literally being a Nazi.

No. You have mistakenly made a recursion of a recursion and changed the rules. That is called a paradox.

All narrative is recursion. The only reason you think of it as dichotomy or dialectic is that when the recursion stops, it is because the narrative is no longer useful to be believed.
And where it stops defines two states: the dialectic.
But to look at the dialectic you enter a new narrative - a story of the story - that has its own recursion.

You have taken the rules of the recursion that stopped and applied it to the recursion that is looking at the recursion, and transcended through the semantic into a loop of confusion called a paradox.

The benefit of freedom of speech is just that. You are a person, an individual, a being with a voice that as long as you wish to voice it you can. As soon as you try to limit that in any way more restrictions will follow and soon no one will have a voice past what is approved.
Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). The concept of natural law is closely related to the concept of natural rights.

>CTRL+F
>no "le Sup Forums is one person fallacy"

Because this would lump me in with most of the people that belong to the left.

Because it's a strawman to assuage the feeling of getting buttfucked when they're arguing against people they disagree with.

> "H-he's not toeing the party line! B-but every smart person at my university agrees with me, he must be X, Y, Z! I'll yell that at him so everyone knows what he is and doesn't bother adressing any points hes bringing up, that'll show 'em!

If you do not see anything terrifying about this image, then you are already too far gone.

Alright, fine, if you feel that applying your rules to you is a paradox, just focus on the part about you conveniently claiming special knowledge of the "intent" of the concept in order to suit your narrative.

I do see something terrifying about this image, it implies that people who don't "use free speech correctly" are to be suppressed, presumably by force and/or legal means.

I've tried to reason with this person but a good quote. It is easier to fool someone then convince them they have been fooled

"Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction."
Literally stating that the truth is hate speech.

Well said

i get mad at the namecalling just like i'd get mad at someone for blocking their ears and singing when i'm trying to make a point

it's the same shit

It isn't but maybe you should stop arguing with children

Because it's a weapon used by leftists to silence all opposition. After all most immigrants, gays and other similar groups are just pawns of communists who pretend to actually care about them. Really the only reason why the left has so much power is because they have managed to brand everyone who disagrees with them as racists while pretending to be above it all. So when the leftist shouts "BIGOT" he's not only trying to silence you but also feeds his narcissistic pride and feeling of superiority.

There are differences between the races.

This goes down to a chaotic understanding of genetics and the blurred lines between species and that evolution is constant but stochastic. If you want a light introduction to all these ideas, read The Lost World, Prey and Next by Michael Crichton. This will give you a broad understanding of the ideas and terms behind this. Afterwards, Richard Dawkins is the most accessible writer in academia about these ideas. The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene are the must-reads.

As real as it is, bringing the race reality into politics in an overt way is all but guaranteeing failure. The implications of these truths are so far-reaching that the general public IS NOT ready for them. Think back to the state of Western civilization in the 1960s. The youth of the the day were blind idealist neoliberal hippies that gave us a blind, idealistic neoliberal globalist dream of a world. The radicals of the day, the socialists and capitalists alike, knew the world wasn't ready for their ways. But they started their long march through the institutions and here it is.

The good news in this regard is that amongst our generation, whilst there are more of the extreme type of globalist progressives and race deniers than ever before, it is also true that there are more informed opponents of it than ever before.

The George Wallaces of yesterday have the Stefan Molymemes of today. An articulation of observed reality not couched in emotional rhetoric but data and evidence.

Even using the language of the pre-20th century racialists must be abandoned and repudiated wherever we encounter them.

This means using ethnicities as best they are understood by science. It ought to be noted that haplogroups denote only the unbroken chains of parental descent, the mitochondria and the Y-chromosome, and whilst important to geneticists, tell you only the most rudimentary information about an individual.

tl;dr CIVIC NATIONALISM UNTIL WE'RE READY

No.
First, everything is a representation you made recursively. The brain is a sense organ that senses itself, then sense itself sensing itself. When it senses itself sensing itself it is no longer sensing something it cannot control.

We accept and reject the stories we make from our senses by whether they work, or are useful to be believed.

There is a world that is, but we can never know it outside of a story we tell ourselves.

But it is not just solipsism. We make stories together, and the world tells us whether those stories work.

So to say there is a world we can know that has 'natural rights' is absurd rhetoric meant only to control and convince. The only 'right' you have is to die, and no longer make your story.

Second is that concept of rhetoric. Everything is a story even action. If you had no story, then even action would be indistinguishable from randomness. That computer you are looking at is just random colors to a frog. He has no concept of the story of a computer, and so cannot even notice it as anything but noise.

To corroborate our narratives so that we act together, we have to have a story that we share. We have the similar stories because we have similar intents and all (mostly) create a story that the world allows.

When your story is just a story with no world to corroborate it, and you corroborate only by tricking your brain with rhetoric - ethos, pathos, logos - then the story will eventually stop.

Pleas to Platonic forms like natural rights are rhetoric - you are just trying to end the argument by saying you can't argue it.
But action where your desire matches the intent of your narrative is so believable that you mistake it for the world, and it needs no argument.

Just because your story or representation is useful to be believed, doesn't make it any less a story. Yet, just because it is story, doesn't mean it is not useful to be believed.

As a follow up to this, NEVER TELL ANYONE THAT YOU BELIEVE IN RACIAL DIFFERENCES.

TELL THEM YOU ONLY BELIEVE IN CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND OTHER SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS

"Oy vey my liberal friends, isn't the violence coming from the black community just terrible? So sad to see cultural differences lead to such hardship for so many. But we must have law and order and we must be strict."

"Of course we love and need immigrants, but we should give preferential treatment to those who share the cultural values of America and especially who speak our language excellently. You can't have a nation without a culture, and that begins with language."

"No of course we're all one race, the human race, but I believe in the EFFECT that our BELIEF in races has. Even though race isn't real, people behave as if it is, so we have to address that behaviour!"

as that may very well be true, you should just ignore these faggots. the Jews want this division between us.

false and not an argument

"when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser" -socrates

and guess what kind of person slanders anybody who disagrees with xir? a BIGOT

LEFTISTS are the actual BIGOTS

Adults do this too. There were protesters at a Toronto university recently where Jordan Peterson was talking about bill C-16 and these 20-something year old university students were putting in their fingers in their ears and going "la la la la la la" whenever he tried to speak into the microphone. It's truly sad but most of your generation are literal, actual cucks who behave like small toddlers. I'm glad I was born in the late 70s and am not associated with your ilk.

>most of your generation
According to a handful of things you've seen online, if you're being honest. Most people are actually not tranny SJWs when you go outside.

You literally just repeated your argument. If nobody has rights but to die why are you even arguing your point? If everything is a story from the actions of a person to the things they say, why would anyone or any group of people have any input on someones story? From what they say to eat to do?
The thing about natural rughts or inalienable rights is that every person has them and deserves them something we can all corroborate on

>equating white male with nigger
>not seeing the irony

Looks like white male is a slur just nigger is now boys

>Oppose illegal immigration

RACISSSSSSSS XENOPHOBEE

>Oppose feminist hypocrisy

SEXISSSSSSSSST BIGOOOOT

We just expose the globalist elitist occult jews and their plans my friend.

Your words have no power anymore.

>

Hate speech laws don't require hate speech. They're laws. It's totally legal to advocate for them before hate speech is illegal, and it's illegal to advocate against them once they've been passed.

They are the canary in the coal mine of civil liberties.

...

Here is my opinion about you, you think you are smarter than you really are. Probably in college or been out for a year or two. Your argument is complete trash and you should be embarrassed. You think that you are right and your head is shoved so far up your ass that you can't even see from others perspective. Obviously you don't belive in freedom of speech or any form of rights but to die. Good day person I must go to work now