Why does the right assume allowing white supremacy and hate speech is part of tolerance?

Why does the right assume allowing white supremacy and hate speech is part of tolerance?

Other urls found in this thread:

blog.dilbert.com/post/156857834926/sam-harris-induces-cognitive-dissonance-in-ben
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Why does the left assume allowing all-but-white supremacy and censoring free speech is part of tolerance?

They don't really that sort of argument is more about defacing your opponent without grounds to. Credulous teens on Sup Forums take this sort of rhetorical shit at face value and scour Wikipedia cherry picking ways to make it "factual" annnd eventually it winds up on kikebook as fake news. What a time to be alive.

say it with me

Fpbp

Why does pol constantly fall for some of the shittiest bait out there?

Sage, faggots

Necessary ritual cleansing before the ugly business begins

Because they tend to support Muslim/Islamic tolerance. And those ideologies have strong racist and sexist views.

It's shedding light onto the
hypocrisy of the left.

We don't. Tolerance is a shitty principle that only the left could come up with.

As Alinsky said, we hold them to their own standards.

I tend to agree with Sam Harris about Islam

is he redpilled?

From le Epic Persuasion Man.

blog.dilbert.com/post/156857834926/sam-harris-induces-cognitive-dissonance-in-ben

> Bam, you're persuaded !

liberals arent the left the same way Republicans are not Conservative

saged

problem snowflake?

So much this

Whenever someone farts the wrong way to an Arab or a nigger they go mental and kill someone.
When whites do something against them it's front page news for a week.

Where is the outrage of the white female jogger in NY getting killed simply for walking out and about?
Nowhere to be seen because the killer was a black man, so he is sheltered by the media.

if a white person would've killed a female arab or black girl jogging it would be front page news.

PRESIDENT. HILLARY.

this simply is not true, whites are alsays written off as mentally ill individuals while blacks committing the same crime suddenly is a part of a larger societal issue

Because the left allows Black supremacy and anti-White speech.

>tolerance

Who cares? White advocacy and "hate speech" are legally protected. You only have to tolerate them as far as the law requires.

Why should I be tolerant of things that are bad?
Because niggers have feelings?
Plants have feelings too but I'll shred a tree to build my home. Dogs have feelings too but I'll stab one in the throat if it attacks me. Niggers have feelings too but they're subhuman vermin who belong contained or exterminated.

>what are sources
>implying implications

Blacks are labeled as part of a bigger cultural problem because statistically they are more prone to commit crime than other races.

...

In order to accept White Supremacy and "Hate speech" you need consensus on the topic with more then just one group of people.

Just calling something hate speech or white supremacy doesn't make it so.

We tell the truth. Here's the truth.

Whites invented everything, and by rights ought to be the ones who control everything.

Blacks are savages, and a cancer whose irresponsible reproduction will destroy us if not brought under control soon. They hate white people and kill them and take their wealth and their women whenever given the opportunity.

Anybody who tells you otherwise is either delusional or favours white genocide, or both.

That isn't hate speech. Those are simple statement of facts.

>Marxist have done nothing but make excuses for the terror their shitty fundamentally unworkable ideology

MADAME PRESIDENT

Hate speech is a convienient means to censorship.

Ask anyone who supports it 'who defines hate speech and what to censor' and watch their faces. Right as they stop looking like a special ed student ask them 'isn't it easier just to let people say what they want?'.

Because people will just call anything they dislike hate speech, and it will be censored on that basis.

Check em. Leaf right for once.

Why does the left believe that thought policing, echo chambers and violent protests because someone's opinion is different to theirs are a part of tolerance?

>are a part of tolerance?

They dont. They unironically believe its a part of progress for us all to be sheep.

Because if you're only tolerant of shit you agree with you're not being tolerant at all.

All jokes aside why was Trump president if both praised kek for Hilary and Trump? Plus so many want her to be president. Someone explain? muh meme magic isn't working ;__; where is my female president.

Why does the left assume anyone that isn't sucking a million nigger dicks is a white supremacist?

She wasn't blessed with holy digits. You cannot force the meme.

>assume
1: We're objectively right, period.
2: You have no say in the matter. Your side lost badly. You have been completely BTFO.
3: The lefty obsession with trying to act tough as though you're holding a revolution or have any power whatsoever is pathetic. YOU. LOST.

Eight Years. We're going to make your party illegal. Don't stop posting gay comics though, that'll definitely change the government.

This x100.

As long as the paradigm by which we operate takes into account subjective interpretation you cannot ban free speech.

Marx was a cumdrinking criminal rapist who never once said anything of any value, ever. He was also Jewish.
Bakunin did everything Marx did better and morally.

>What's crime rate

Go fuck yourself

Because if they could actually support their ideology with facts and reason, they wouldn't need violence.

But we all know leftists lost all credibility after appealing to Muslims/Communists and being wrong about everything.

The question is why does the left think everyone who are against them are white supremacist and hate-speakers?

I can say I want closed borders for anyone who are of another ethnicity.. and that is not racism.

just because blacks have warrior geins more then any other race doesn't mean you can just assume crime is higher among blacks and our population. If there's a fight we fight, dont mean anything personal but it's literally survival for us.

you wouldn't understand.

PRIVILEGE CZECHED
OP REKT
FPBP

>doesn't mean you can just assume crime is higher among blacks and our population

Ah, but crime IS higher among blacks. Crime correlates more strongly with Vibrancy than it does poverty or unemployment.

But then, we all knew this. The only question is if we were willing to admit it.

Because that's the definition and purpose of tolerance and free speech. There's no point of providing free speech for or being tolerant of views that are already accepted.

But keep escalating. You're only giving moral justifications for brutal retaliation by the right, if you're going to oppress and physically assault half the US population simply because you disagree with them.

>But then, we all knew this. The only question is if we were willing to admit it.

Anyone who buys a house admits this

Ah the french revolution, a great analog to Trump's rise to power.

The left are the french nobility and elite, ignoring the malaise and suffering of the commoner classes.

It won't be the right that get culled in the coming conflict. It will be swathes and piles and pyramids of dead leftists.

BITCH

>can't just assume crime is higher among blacks
We're not "assuming". We have the stats to back it up.
Do you think the FBI just makes up these stats out of thin air?
That there's massive numbers of whites playing the "knockout game" and white-on-black rapes that are MYSTERIOUSLY going unreported?

...

Right, but only implicitly. They think

>I want to live in a nice neighborhood

Rather than the more accurate

>I don't want to be robbed or killed by a nigger

That second one is very nearly thoughtcrime, and it most people won't admit it. That's why Sup Forums is so powerful; people can adopt heretical positions on race or sex and fully explore them in safe anonymity.

Because you tolerate things you don't like. That's the whole point of tolerance. You tolerate lines in the grocery store because you want food, you tolerate paying a bit in taxes because you want the services they provide, you tolerate a red traffic light because you know you need some way to reduce the number of stupid accidents on the road, and you tolerate speech you don't agree with because if you can tolerate and defend that speech your own speech is more secure.

Hate speech is not free speech senpai

He's a kike, and not to be trusted.
You can see how he used to be redpilled on Muslims, then 180ed during this election cycle because his (((people))) told him to.

>assume

Criminal Justice Major senior here.

White liberals (the entire fucking collegiate system) will argue its because of socio-economic constructs that our society has placed on them.
It's all whitey's fault. I literally LIE DAILY in my criminal justice classes in order to not fail.

I'm taking a fucking class on gender in CJ and one on Race in CJ. They don't welcome argument. They're trying to change the whole system.

It's more than living in a nice neighborhood. It's also

> I don't want my kid to go to a school where blacks are bussed in
> I don't want my doctor to take welfare because that means he's bad
> I don't want to see liquor stores on every corner and fried chicken joints on the other
> I don't want my house to depreciated based on banking demographics
> I don't want to see a WIC card

Buying a house is the most racist thing people do and most liberals go out of their way to be as racist as possible once the papers are drawn

"Hilter did nothing wrong."

that is where youre wrong kiddo

LOCK
HER
UP

I think it's an interesting observation

there are several moving parts here, which I think you are confusing

free speech = people being able to communicate without censorship
tolerance = community acceptance of fringe/minority views

the reason "the right" thinks white supremacists should be tolerated; is manifold
A. some believe minorities should just be ignored for the sake of social cohesion (see:DNFT) instead of being censored, which invariable drags people into the issues
B. fear of the censor, if something is banned then someone has to be given the power to ban it.
the laws or principles that authority follows, and their ability be held accountable is seen by many as a greater evil
C. many people do not believe in "hate speech" at all, and see negative views as part of a natural spectrum of belief
barring nay-Sayers skews debate, and hampers objection to all issues
D. for some people it's a administrative issue, they believe that censorship is fine; but object to it being done on a social, commercial or governmental level

It is here. :)

Honestly idk why they even let faggots like you live,you deserve the firing squad...

>fear of the censor, if something is banned then someone has to be given the power to ban it.
>the laws or principles that authority follows, and their ability be held accountable is seen by many as a greater evil

This is the only argument people actually make. The rest are strawmen.

First post best post once again.

Friend of mine went to North Carolina State University, they had a black supremacist teacher who believes the Yakub theory. He's been there 10+ years. "This isn't a big deal." people say.

Black supremacy is tolerated, but white PRESERVATION is racist. Fuck these people. They had their chance to like us when we were nice and they called us "radicals". Maybe they need to see what a radical looks like before they use that word again.

>Hate speech is not free speech senpai

Actually it is here in America. You know what speech isn't protected? Calls for violence.

>muh punch a nazi

that feel
got thrown out of first year law for holding politically unacceptable views

>the law can protect society, or dispense justice; not both
>if the legal expectations on some groups of people are lowered in pursuit of broader gains, it's fair and practical to place discriminatory restrictions on them
>the federal-state-county court hierarchy is absolute, ((they)) tried to justify states defying federal law on an administrative level, or by tolerating rogue judges

>Why does right assume that being tolerant is part of tolerance?

Hate speech is the only free speech. Everything but hate speech is just speech.

I dropped out of NC State because I fell for the "just get any degree" meme then soon realized I was getting an indoctrination rather than en education. This was almost 10 years ago, I can't imagine how bad it is now. And if State is bad, I don't even want to think about the bullshit shoveled at UNC.

I live in an upper income mixed community in Miami senpai

figured OP wanted a range of views

but individuals do believe all these things
personally I believe that state-backed censorship created a cycle where parties write themselves immunity to criticism

>pro-drugs parties can have their campaigning criminalized
>pro sharia law parties have their campaigning protected

and I see censorship as the tool of a insidious minority
if everyone can speak freely, extremists will drive people away from their cause
you have to let some yell fire in a cinema for some peoples nature to be exposed

>upper income
>mixed
So, less than 10% black and some Asians? I live in a neighborhood where whites are a minority. In fact, there's some "bix nood" going on in the alley out back just now.

BrUh
the american constitution is "a living, breathing, document." - they don't fucking shut up about it

>Altering its meaning to fit their desires.

The right does not. The right knows some intolerance is needed to keep a country from going into decline. Tolerance, by it's very definition, requires one to allow things that are unwanted. We simply recognize the things that are not wanted and remove them entirely, thus actually solving the problems instead of ignoring them.

>upper income

that's the upper number of people, not the upper bracket of wealth though isn't it

you're just less poor

So you live with Asians and Indians who are engineers and doctors. Got it.

Ill admit there arent many blacks, they are only 20% of the population here. There are a lot of darker hispanics, Indians and Muslims, three Muslim doctors on my block alone

When a white person does it it's always "ban non-whites ree day of the rope"

When a black person does it they're just being a nigger, there's no motivation other than "gibsmedat"

>you have a freedom of speech until you say something that's not allowed
an interesting definition of freedom, user

>and white-on-black rapes that are MYSTERIOUSLY going unreported?

For white crime to be systematically ignored, there would have to be a large number of unsolved crimes in areas with white people, and the density would be expected to correlate with the white population.

However, this is not the case. The areas with the most vibrant are the ones with the most unsolved cases rather than those with the least Enrichment.

the problem is what you are willing to do to stop it

There was a racially inverted version of what happened with Zimmerman and Martin, and the media literally tried to cover it up. They even went as far as to try to silence the only outlets reporting on it.

Muslim isn't a race. My state is maybe 10% black but the Somalis and straight up niggers all live in Minneapolis and my part of St paul. Young whites can afford houses, they're just usually not as brave as I am.

>1 comment
(you)

Double and OP dies tonight.

>We simply recognize the things that are not wanted and remove them entirely

Would you say we seek to physically remove them, so to speak?

maybe thats because they march to a library and start screaming that it belongs to them now and anyone who has a problem with it must leave

It isn't even white supremacy. If you don't want to get your group of people genocided you aren't a radical. It is common sense.

Minorities are a protected class. The full extent of their damage is never revealed. As a cop once told me: the local news doesn't report a quarter of the crimes that occur. If they did, everyone would move.

>if a white person would've killed a female arab or black girl jogging it would be front page news.

And we would drown in tales of white supremacy.

Because the left claims to be for freedom of speech and in favor of that constitutional right. They will often times accuse the right of censoring and not allowing the truth. However, this seems to have changed a bit in recent years. The liberal left seems to be giving way to the authoritarian left, like Stalin or Lenin or Mao or Castro. Truly, left wing death squads are what to watch for. So quickly has America forgotten the lessons of the last century. Communism kills, so kill communism wherever it grows.

This, spbp.

Good joke.
Everyone laughs.

>If they did, everyone would move.

Most white people, liberals included, avoid this by being hella racist in regards to where they buy their houses.

It is not about tolerance, you dingus, its free speech.

Because being some faggot on the internet does not give you the authority to define hate-speech. Noone has the authority to define hate-speech or any speech. Either your speech holds merit or it does not. But I guess such a concept is a little too adult for your child like brain

I find the US constitution fascinating

there seems like no consistency in how it's enforced
it's so hard to alter, that it's just bent by interpretation; and I really see that letting down americans because combined with inter-judicial pressure and the growing sway of precedent of substance meaning far too much power is in the hands of the judiciary

eg. constitution makes a very hard point that is also very broad
>right to bear arms
nobody really has the political power/will to change, amend, re-draft, clarify the document
so both sides of an issue result to fighting interpretations; instead of the better system of just re-working
then a line is crossed and the original document is no longer respected
>NY gun bans
if nobody is sure what the original intent was, the law should be scrapped and re-written
if people are sure what the intent was, and just don't like it; at some point the majority needs to have DIRECT power to amend

so I suppose I disagree with you about the nature of the constitution, though I suspect we are in agreement on the relevant issues

Why does the left not realize we've tricked you into selling out your souls.

Freedom of speech was never meant for popular speech. It was always there to protect unpopular opinions.

You have turned on the very foundations of your party.

Ha!ha!