LOL YOUR OPINIONS ARE SHIT

>LOL YOUR OPINIONS ARE SHIT
Every single discussion i have online with a leftist ends with this from him, is there any way to counter it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OiNYuhLKzi8
pepethefrogfaith.wordpress.com/
dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a507172.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I've had discussions with leftist in which they will just call me brainwashed instead of listening to anything I say.

>if you don't agree with me I have every right to prevent you from expressing your views publicly

At this point stop arguing because they do not and will not understand

No, i mean with pic related, not greentext

there are right wing sites which remove leftists, jews and niggers from posting there.

We are basically and apologetically showing the door to black people, jews and lefties even without the ability for them to exert any words lol.

You know what ww2 germany was for example? Pretty much the same. Git out jews and degenerates lol.

Bring up mass firings for union associations.

Also, XKCD is undeniably the most bluepilled entry level "I'm more intelligent than you, and I'm gonna make sure you know it" drivel
It's made for pseudointellectuals by a man who only knows about rockets and physical science

honestly anyone who actually wants to have an argument is probably pretty strong in their beliefs and wont be swayed by anything you say, no matter how well you debate or what good points you bring. you might redpill some people who are listening though, but otherwise its just not worth the effort.

People like that could get mugged by a gang of nogs right after the debate and then get a phone call saying their parents died in a muslim terror attack while getting a text from their friend that tyron is cucking him with his wife... and STILL justify their beliefs with the proper mental gymnastics

The comic is right. Is there a specific event or situation you are thinking of?

Ask them what relevancy that image had to do with their arguments. Ex.

>When was free speech brought up to shield me from criticism?

And discussions are two-sided, so kicking people out isn't good for conversation. It's ultimately just
>Not an argument

((((((((((((XKCD)))))))))))))

I wish I could punch you in the fucking face right now. Put a gun in your mouth.

Don't argue with your betters, you won't win.

Is that real?

This is completely true though. Censure by private entities is itself speech.

Stop having shit opinions

You cannot have a productive discussion with someone who has their identity tied up in how much smarter than you they are.

Once you discover they are just arguing and not discussing, once you see them reject statistics or twist what you said, continuing the debate is pointless.

They are not seeking truth, they want to "win" and validate thier "superior" intellect.

the thing about us, we are not really scared of violence, its even a thing that we like a lot more than you guys, and are also better at.

isnt that nice though? You basically have zero power over us, and we are more than willing to do you, and your nigger/jew pets harm. We actually do them digital harm each day. As we basically have all agreed in doing you harm, but also what kind of methods of that harm are used against you.

so yea, whatever.

This pic is indeed correct. Just right wing speakers are banned not because they are assholes, but because lefties are afraid of the truth.

Havent you noticed the liberal smell from his pics?

>there are right wings sites which remove leftists, jews, and niggers from posting there
Such as?

/r/The_Donald

if you dont know about them, we dont want you there most likely. Lurk more here for a couple of years lol

So if you're standing on a private highway during a traffic jam and talk with some guy and said guy doesn't like your opinion, calls the highway mods, and consequently you're banned from the highway. I this ok?

>Every single discussion i have online with a leftist ends with this from him, is there any way to counter it?
No, it's a valid, self-contained argument. You can only dispute the premise that "free speech" as an idea is identical with "free speech" as understood in US Constitutional Law. This is not particularly taxing.

Incidentally, it is why excessive privatization is bad, since under US law Constitutional protections only limit the action of government agents, not private agents. Excessive privatization is a way for the government to use captured businesses to circumvent legal protections.

Yet when bakers refuse to bake cakes for gay people, the leftists chimp out and say that they should be forced to serve gays, even though they are private entities.

Point is you can talk but no one has to listen.

When leftists talk do you listen?

If mob rule is held to that sort of esteem, anything the mob decides is A-okay?

This is the opposite of law and order, the opposite of justice, and indeed the opposite of theoretical social justice? If this mentality was achievable by real people, SJWs would be homeless, unemployable wrecks?

This is an edit, right? 'cos there's no fucking way the author thinks this is really okay? Nothing to do with Left or Right, this is just flat out fascism.

Bullshit. Because if you don't want to read this you might as well close your eyes or turn the computer off. You're deciding just because you don't want to hear this ban this opnion altogether even for those who might to. That's the point of censorship. You're saying I don't want to see this therefor you shouldn't see this either.

law and order are build upon a common shared, desire that was made from an individual basis.

If two people agree on something, like lets say nigger killings. Then they can make a law around that. All the other systems are basically bigger things like that concept, with more people. But similar still.

That is the reason why the same reasoning that leftists use also are legitimate reasons for right wingers who also want to kill all the jews.

Its called freedom of association. And all it takes is agreeing parties. History had many of these right wing things and right now many of us are agreeing on the kebab, negro and jews removal. So yea.

The good thing about things like this is that there are also many willing people to use violence to get their way, and we are also eroding the jew programming around not initiating force and being okay with niggers. Its more or less a done deal already probably.

Even in this bizarre reduction to absurdity, yes, these people have every right to do that. Whether people should do that is another matter entirely.

not when used as a threat or a deterrent, though. it's a fine line that needs to be policed carefully.

how many right-leaning people you know who can't express themselves out of fear of losing their jobs?

this is bullshit.

It depends on which status you've given free speech, is it a natural right or a law open for change? Or is it given by the majority and change whenever a majority demands it?

I view the right to speak your mind as a natural right, it simply doesn't matter if it's codified or not. All human societies are built in the use of speech and that its members can communicate unbridled by the threat of severe and exaggerated repercussions.

They also forget that it is not legal for a private agent/individual to silence someone else and that it is within the governments ambit to protect its citizens freedom of speech, not that it is only illegal if the government suppresses someone's freedom of speech.

That's a bullshit froo-froo magic hypothetical you conjured up, Germany. If you were secretly trying to make a case for why ancap is dumb, you at least succeeded there.

I completely agree with the right's complaint about leftist hypocrisy regarding closely-held businesses.

>policed
>policing speech
>I-I'm offended that people are allowed to tell me they're offended!
Go fuck yourself.

>Yelled at, is free speech. Are they harassing you
>Boycotting doesn't take away your speech
>Show getting cancelled by private broadcaster. That doesn't take away your free speech either
>banned from an internet community where the internet community is private property does not violate free speech either.

free speech not broken once

You're saying I don't want to see this therefor you shouldn't see this either.


I am not. If it is illegal to broadcast your opinions then that violates free speech. If you are complaining about the poor distribution of the ability to broadcast your opinion then you are entering sjw territory with power dynamics.

destroy bolchewism and lefties church

highway is public property. so no. this happens all the time. ever see ppl holding signs up as speaking on a megaphone?

The 1st amendment does only apply to the government, however the idea of freedom of speech is not limited to that. Anybody can simply walk away from a conversation if they aren't happy, the problem is that people in the modern age believe speech is something to be protected from. The damage done to society when unpopular ideas are shut down by the government, or an angry mob, is the same. People on the left like to think that their views are simply correct, and opposing views or values are not simply wrong, they are damaging. the threat isn't an idea convincing, or even influencing someone, it is more like it is a disease infecting people on the left, and that disease needs to be extinguished as soon as possible

When people on the left try to shut down speech, remind them of Frederick Douglas in his "A Plea for Free Speech in Boston"
>Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech. Five years of its exercise would banish the auction block and break every chain in the South. They will have none of it there, for they have the power. But shall it be so here?

Say that
>It's easy to say that when you are on the "right" side of the political view of this country. Everyone should have the freedom of expressing their opinion without being bashed, shamed or fired. If you were treated like me because of your political view/opinions, wouldn't you find it unfair?

>nobody has ever been yelled at, boycotted or excommunicated due to their views without just being an asshole

XKCD really believes this? I'm pretty sure most modern principles of science and math were wholly condemned by people and that this comic would apply to someone like Galileo or Darwin easily enough.

>Galileo your free speech isn't being violated; people just think you're a science denier and an asshole and we're... honestly... sick of dealing with it ugh

The classic:
>NOT AN ARGUMENT

>Its called freedom of association
That makes a bit more sense. It doesn't make it any less arbitrary to suddenly decide as a mob you don't like, say, lefthanded people and thus shun them.

It doesn't add credence in an objective manner to what the OP comic is trying to assert is some sort of Truth being upheld by the brave censors. It's just saying "mob rules, because might makes right" ultimately? Again, the opposite of the very concept of social justice (aka equality of outcome).

It's so weird that they don't see it? How can they express something so utterly against what they supposedly stand for without noticing?

"Waaaahh muh freeze peach"

that's called 'deflection'. you gotta confront them,'not an argument', call them out on just trying to shut down the conversation because they got nothing

>Galileo was persecuted as a science denier
You shitting me leaf?

>Censure by private entities is itself speech.
No, it isn't.

The Vatican had the entire say on what was acceptable science back then. (Given that modern Empirical Science is Jesuit Theology, it is arguable they still do...)

Every visionary in history was jeered at by the status quo, often shunned, and sometimes imprisoned or killed. Didn't stop them being right. But hey, mob rules is a-okay, apparently?

Yes, it is.

just be yourself

Thanks Chad for your timeless wisdom

No it isn't. I'm showing you the door.
>It's only okay if works for me but not you.

Mob rule is the way of the retard, the no-argument mewling bitch afraid to lose face and be proven wrong and the 'anti-fascistic' left excels at it.

>is there any way to counter it?
Maybe you should stop having shit opinions

you sound like a fag lol

point out that by firing a person they are bulying him and having a REAL impact on his life thus INFLUENCING his ideas with external factors=its not really free speech.

Tell em how would they feel if the majority was doing the REVERSE to them.

Then again theyll play rethorics and ignore anythign you say...

try planting a SEED of doubt in them..only time and self-refelction cna give fruits. YOu cna't change people, they need to change themselves from the inside.

Yes op with pic related

I wasn't disputing user's broader point about the perils of majoritarianism as guidance for speech norms. But co-opting a contemporary term (science denial) to re-contextualize Galileo's persecution at the hands of religious authorities for the purposes of establishing a supporting metaphor was a bridge too far.

kek

There's a reason we disregard reddit across the board.

Try that one:
The best way to support and feed your delusions: Surround yourself with people that match your world views exactly.

Or maybe: When I learn new facts that contradict my current beliefs I change my current beliefs. What do you do?

It's not wrong. I would just do the same to him.
We are moving past the point of discussing much with leftist anyways. War will occur soon.

you sound like a fucking hick, stop embarrassing us

>The very best way to feed your delusion...
>Post on twitter with everyone upboating you.
Really networked my neurons.

That image concedes the flawed leftist ideal that echo chambers are good. If you are going full Ben Garrison mode and screaming NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER, well that's not an argument and not conductive to discourse and thusly yes you should be banned. If you present an argument, say being a race realist with statistics about how blacks have lower IQs and commit more crime, and the platform censors you because it goes against their narrative then the platform is now an devolving echo chamber.

That was a sad day. Brendan Eich, main creator of the programming language the entire internet uses (client side) was going to uncuck Mozilla. It was standing at the edge, and he became the CEO. Liberals threw a fit because they found he donated 1k to a traditional marriage fund for California's prop 8, three years prior.

He then "resigned." Mozilla then ran full steam ahead, added ads into the browser, wasted a ton of their budget on "girls who code", and became diversity trash.

(((xcuckcd)))

lol look at how hard this lefistfaggot is raging

>everyone I know who is right always agrees with me

That's why you don't tell them your opinions. You tell them facts.

Also, it's important to learn to think before getting in a debate: What is your goal?
A) To convert them to your position
B) To humiliate them publicly and thereby influence onlookers toward your position
C) To screech autistically in response to someone having opinions that differ from yours

Goal A is best done privately, from a position of trust, and without resorting to name-calling. Goal B is necessarily done publicly, may involve any dirty trick you like, and should end with the audience joining in on the mockery. Goal C is obviously to be avoided - save that kind of thing for Sup Forums where we can appreciate it.

>quality post
>no replies
Every time, Sup Forums. Every fucking time.

You are based user, and your post is also based. Based on cold hard logic.

The best way to defend quality posts is to counter-point the opposing opinion. Not giving "upboats."

We're not talking about people being offended, we're talking about using free speech to go after individuals by dragging corporations into it and creating astroturf twitter campaigns to ruin the persons life

Free speech was always a gentlemans agreememt that you weren't going to wield it as a weapon to silence discourse you disagree with but now they do that

It's ok, I don't fish for (you)s. When I qualitypost instead of shitpost and no one replies, I take it as a sign that it's basically a great comment and there's no substantial objection.

Regardless, thank you for your praise.

If we disregard outdated muh murican constitution and focus only on idea of free speech it boils down to one question:

Do you believe in right of every individual to express himself the way he wants and say whatever he thinks?

There are only two possible answers.
Sure in US only government needs to respect free speech while private companies have right to censor as they please.
But in perfect world companies would be held accountable for censoring by its users. I hate censoring. I like to read blogs of authors I dont agree with. Being exposed to counter arguments is best thing to either learn new things or strengthen your current beliefs even more.

In censored save spaces where there is no criticism users only radicalize themselves and lunacy only gets stronger.

Now listen here you little shit.

I don't come on this website for enlightened discourse. I don't come here for news and current affairs. I don't even come here to post my OC.

I come here to make low effort posts and let other people think for me so I can take their distilled conclusions and use them to pretend to be smart around my normie friends.

Anyone who gets in the way of that will taste my katana.

I know that feeling.

>type a 2,700 character magnum opus with quotes and citations and lovingly cull it down to the post limit
>eagerly wait for the (You)s to come rolling in
>nothing
>nothing at all
>go to sleep
>load up the archived thread the next day
>one reply basically saying "this" (sometimes literally)
The melancholy life of user.

So many people on my facebook feed defending the Milo rioting
>b-but dude free speech only means government can't censor people
>haha checkmate drumpfkin
They don't understand the depth of what they're saying, Free Speech is so much more than that.
It's a mechanism in which we orient ourselves between order and chaos, how we identify problems in society and fix them.
You can have a discussion with someone.
You can be their slave.
Or you can be their tyrant.

no point arguing with emotional thinkers

>kidnap them
>drop them off at the nearest enriched locale with shopping bags from high end stores
>watch from a distance as the pragmatism seeps in

Is it reprehensible that mobs of anonymous internet users become consumed by mindless rage-campaigns to harass people (as Sup Forums and Sup Forums have done in the past)? Yes.

So we can both agree that private entities such as Twitter and Facebook should have the power to sanction people who repeatedly engage in such activities.

Do you think it's ok to have a forum dedicated to anime, where off-topic discussions are actively shut down? This is censorship, but the kind we usually don't mind. We don't mind it because we know the rules up front when we choose to engage.

We don't like corporate "censorship" of the kind behind the recent (((youtube))) bullshit because we don't know the rules up front. It becomes a kind of rule-of-man not rule-of-law. We aren't confident that we can know in advance whether we are playing by the rules, even if we want to. Moderation becomes perceived as biased, malicious, or petty.

This is "chilling," I think elaborates on your point. Private spaces often censor in a way where the rule (which is no rule at all) is: avoid controversy. There is no way to use this rule as a guide behavior, since there is no way to know the boundaries of controversy without engaging in controversy.

I pay to watch what will basically be the destruction of an hypocrite.

>Private individuals can't.
>But private corporations can.
(((You)))

Fucking this. Type a well thought out non inflammatory post, get no (You)s. Go full autistimo shitpost become a threadly (You)illionaire.

Also for creating threads. Make the OP nice and clean. Straight to page 10 ten and archived. Combatively state the opposite of what you think finished with "LOL Sup Forums BTFO", 300+ reply screenshoted thread and a daily general made in it's honor.

>Private individuals can't.
Since when?

>So we can both agree that private entities such as Twitter and Facebook should have the power to sanction people who repeatedly engage in such activities.

This not what you posted? You used already illegal activities to justify an encroachment on free speech to block opinions you don't like.

>You used already illegal activities to justify an encroachment on free speech to block opinions you don't like.
That's not what I posted at all.

People, at least here, rather criticize than pat you on the back. And I think most of us are here because this is not hugbox.

I like posts that contradict me more than posts that say I was right. From first ones there is potential to learn new thing or see your position from different angle, if yomeone just agrees with you there is not much to gain. Only ego boost. He is already on your side, no need to discuss with him things you both already know.

Don't be an asshole. Express the most contrarian opinions but saying you like people and treating them kindly instead of yelling, using CAPS or offending. You might even compliment people for the qualitiies they have ("you are very eloquent, but you are wrong. There are only two genders").

I suppose the decisions of your supreme Court ratify that when they talk about Governamental speech. when the Government speaks as a private entity, it can censor stuff. They censored manifestations in a mail chan of a public school, if I am not mistaken.

At this point if they leave you have a very powerful emotional tool.

Gesture widely to your audience and proclaim "and he leaves because he doesn't have the better ideas. He claims frustration because I am able to refute all of his points. I value conflicting opinions enormously because you need them to round out your views. But this faggot is so one-minded that he refuses to extend the same courtesy."

Cognitive dissonance affects both sides of our political spectrum to an insane degree. Access to the internet means that you don't have to be confronted with information that will change your mind because you can go to your safe space (pol or tumblr) and have your compatriots back your opinions with THEIR statistics and vice versa.

I spend some on Sup Forums and I hate every one of you racist, women bashing, bootlicking, capitalism worshipping pig dogs and I think the easiest way to move forward would to round you shits up and throw you in the gulags. But you guys have funny memes so I still stick around and watch you eat yourselves.

>implying half of Sup Forums isn't NatSoc that would gas the bourgeoisie
Not so fast shylock

NOT AN ARGUMENT

Is organizing and participating in raids really illegal? For example latest Amy Schumer netflix fiasco. She said her one star rating is due to alt-right trolls that came from reddit. Lets say that is true. Is it illegal thou?
It sounds very normal when relatively smaller companies have right to decide who they provide platform to. Some Jewish art gallery probably wont host exhibition from some neo nazi artist.

But things become less logical when one such company (that its main product is providing platform for sharing ideas), becomes very very big, has monopoly. Like for exmaple FB and Twitter, who are clearly leaning towards SJW and PC culture. Imo this is not right. Do I think it should be illegal? Probably not.
But I do think that this bias will show in their customer base and people who feel that they arent welcome or equally presented will start searching for alternative services.
Sort of like redditvoat, twittergab, facebookminds

Same polarization happened in traditional media when we have almost exclusively left or right leaning media. There almost isnt any unbiased news page with journalists from both sides, or news that try to be strictly objective.

Sure spamming, offtopic, trolling, obvious harassing, doxing, any violence or threats... this shit needs to go. But does it need to be censored (removed from other views)? Not always. In some cases it can stay posted so people can see severity of it and form their opinion on it.

>White House blocks CNN, BBC, New York Times, LA Times from media briefing
Remember this? use the same argument, watch their heads spin trying to say its not the same

> Access to the internet means that you don't have to be confronted with information that will change your mind

Friedrich Nietzsche — 'Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.'

Funny how picture I wanted to post is from tumblr.

>I think the easiest way to move forward would to round you shits up and throw you in the gulags.
because communism has never been tried before
because your ideology is so weak, it can't work in small experiments and grow from there, it can only "work" when you kill anyone who doesn't want to do it.

Nothing is going to change. We're living in a science-fiction novel. People are fearful, they want security. They wont abandon what is necessary to understand anything. Everything they do leads to nothing but conflict. This conflict leads them to accept anything. They are too confused to care. All that exists is aggression, fear, and the need for security in belief. Even the Trump supporters seem to be happy with any kind of functional society, no matter how broken or illogical. We are on the horizon of some really weird shit. This will just continue on. Anyone who is not fearful, who is not aggressive, who is logical, sane and uses critical thought has no place. At the very best that person will be ignored. It is so bizarre.

Well-said. I agree. As it happens, this is the essence of how the American system is supposed to (and does) work. The government abstains from intervening in society where possible, and market forces fill the void.

>Not always. In some cases it can stay posted so people can see severity of it and form their opinion on it.
Indeed. I don't disagree.

Yesterday I saw youtube video from FACT (museum where season 4 of Shia LeBeouf He will not dived us flag was)

Lecture was from some left leaning guy (Writer and researcher Florian Cramer ) presenting meme "alt right" culture. I found video quite interesting.

youtube.com/watch?v=OiNYuhLKzi8

Also relevant:
pepethefrogfaith.wordpress.com/

Lots of lefties are recognizing that anti PC culture is worlds ahead on humor. And this is attracting large amounts of newcomers. Even military began interested in "meme warfare" dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a507172.pdf
Pic related is another example of power of meme magic.

But I dont think that current left can compete in that field. Their communities are based on oppression Olympic. Nobody dares to make a decent joke, because if somebody calls you out, there is no debate you are booted from community. Communities based on walking on eggshells that dont tolerate any self irony cant breed humor.

Block them

i was accosted by a fat leftist feminist on a plan and kept saying "lets agree to disagree" but wouldn't shut the fuck up when i tried to ignore her.

She wanted to fuck.