Oh ho ho pol utterly btfo

Refute this poltards. Pro tip: you can't.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0EC-Di1CRP4&t=4m5s
youtube.com/watch?v=uprofx1iID8
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Waiting for logical arguments against White Nationalism....

Show me one video where Milo incites violence against anybody
Protip: you can't

> the government is not locking up
stopped reading right there

Hitler did absolutely nothing wrong

>using violence is okay if I disagree with you

The only people that I've ever seen use the term "freeze peach" are literal communists.

All transexuals are mentally ill so what ever they say isn't to be taken seriously.
Refute level, unbeatable.

There aren't many actual whites just mongrels. Get a DNA test friend the results may change your outlook.

Plus 1 for me naziboo
Try refuting this
Or try coming up with something other than "muh nashinalizm"

Sure thing nigger

Those students interrupting a peaceful assembly and physically blocking others from attending it are 100% violating both the speaker's freedom of speech as well as the students' freedom to assemble. The argument in that comic is fucktarded.

If a bunch of white nationalists flooded an Afrocentrist lecture, blocked participants, beat the shit out of people trying to attend it, and shouting the speaker down, would SJWs feel the same?

>incites harassment and violence
when did Milo do this? sounds like bullshit to me

Tell me why Whites can't have their lands for themselves? We have zero reason to let that happen. How it is logical to reach a point to eventually being replaced and that our grandchildren will have 0 political power?

...

>political violence is okay as long as you have a vocal minority to support it
Activate the asset.

Face it lads (((milo))) prompts violence from hate filled white cucks by going into places that are supposed to be nurturing for gays and minorities (college is one of the few places they can live with our living in terror from whites or the fascist police). When milo comes violence follows. Look at Berkeley. Instigated by neo nazis

unless milo was imprisoned by the state or federal government for something he said, this is not a free speech issue.

how do people not realize this?

everything else aside, yes he should have been allowed to speak, but shutting down his platform is not breaking the 1st amendment. the 1st amendment only applies to consequences (legal) brought about by the government as a result of the content of one's speech.

someone telling you to shut up isnt violating free speech. someone physically blocking your mouth isnt violating free speech, although it is another crime, battery.

He read out there names of trans students who hadn't come out yet.
>But but but that's not violence!
So i guess if cnn or Liberals out a Sup Forumstard or Twitter troll, you'll be perfectly fine with that.

I'd really, really enjoy pulling out this wretched female's teeth with pliers.

Has anyone ever looked into this "artist". I swear it's shmorky. The art style and everything screams that unbearable faggot

>female

Because that land would be built upon the conquest of other cultures and a wake of ethnic corpses (blacks, hispanics, natives). They've done this for centuries

You don't understand how free speech or assembly works. By your logic I should be able to walk into a church and scream and shout to disrupt the service, and it isn't a violation of the congregants' freedom of religion. The Bill of Rights and the inherent powers of government protect people from their rights being violated by both the federal government, the state governments via the 14th Amendment, and the actions of other citizens.

He stole his microphone, typical nig behaviour

Milo didn't commit any crime

>my emotion face

OP is right. Also, you stormtards haven't provided a single valid argument.

Milo didnt commit a crime, but neither did anyone else "limiting his free speech". I agree he should have been allowed to talk.

you are allowed to do that, until someone who owns the building wants you to leave, then it is criminal trespassing, and you can be arrested for it. You wont be arrested for saying anti-christian shit, you'll be arrested for not leaving when asked to.

Implying good old white nationalism doesn't have good arguments.

Get in my oven!

to expand, you also dont know what freedom of religion means. Disrupting a religious service is not violating freedom of religion. if the federal government disrupts a religious service, yes that is violating freedom of religion

and by disrupting, i mean banning/disallowing people to worship that particular religion, under threat of legal action

>mentally ill tanny attempting to make an argument
>fails to make an argument
kek

tl;dr
lefty comics are fucking boring

>Citizens and students came together
A mob
>to stop this awful man
Subjective and childish
>From inciting harassment and violence against trans women, Muslims, and people of color
Harassment is difficult to define legally, but stating an opinion or statistical fact doesn't constitute harassment. When it comes to inciting violence this literally doesn't happen. Completely civil people like Ben Shapiro have leftists attempt to shut down his events for that reason and it's terrifically stupid.
>So why do you keep going on and on about free speech?
Because no one in a democracy should ever have their voice or opinions repressed by the dominant group. Democracy requires the free flow of ideas, because that's the whole fucking point.

Nice straman. The counter protesters didn't shut down the rally, the university did. Now, whether the university could be considered a government institution or not is questionable, but even if it's not, as an institute of learning, the university shouldn't be censoring ideas. When it does, even if that is not done intentional, it is legitimate to worry about free speech rights.

is that shmorky? the pedophile baby fur?

I like to debate people for real, not draw cartoons about my brain fantasies against a perfectly retarded and incapable opponent

But you better bake me my faggy cake!

...

>TFW only 98%
Wtf I hate white nationalism and the white race in general now.

Okay, I'm going to stop LARPing as a Nazi and answer you seriously. There is no "Goebbels Loophole" in the Bill of Rights. It doesn't just apply to the government. It applies to everyone. No, you do not have the right to go into a church and disrupt their service, no matter how much you disagree with them or how evil you think they are.

We can expel all non-Whites, good start I say

BTdübs this thread is just a goof. I voted for Trump lol. Damn though, Nupol is really quick to trigger. I still haven't heard anyone refute the faggy comic. Poor debating skills. Shame!

Why is it that SJW comics always have shit art styles?

Also while Freedom of Speech is only legally enforced at a governmental level, there's still an ethical obligation for places meant to be educative like universities to uphold it.

of course you don't have a right to do that, because it's not in the bill of rights. But you cannot be arrested for disrupting the service, that's my point. It is not ILLEGAL to disrupt the service. It would be illegal to remain there, disrupting the service, after being asked to leave by the owner of the private property.

Then why did the bakery have to do the gay cake?

Private individuals don't have the capacity to violate rights? Are you retarded?

Pffft, if you put that to the test at a mosque, you will get BTFO

honestly? because the bakery explicitly said they wouldnt because they were gay. If they had just asked them to leave, that would have been 100% ok (we refuse the right to refuse service to anyone). But as soon as you interject a reason that is discriminatory (according to the law), then it's a different case.

seriously, they should have just refused them service without saying a reason. as soon as they said because it violates their beliefs, it became a different legal issue.

but comparing that case to the milo case is somewhat of a false equivalence. And i do not think the bakery should have been forced to bake a cake.

not free speech rights.

>Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

of course you will be BTFO, but not by the government. by individuals, who are also committing a crime if they assault you.

> wall-o-text.jpg

Libtard SJWs violently rioted against Milo and Trump.

Therefor Milo and Trump invited violence

Jeez it's not that hard

Is gay a protected class though?

Communists do not recognize our rights, therefore we do not recognize theirs.

I see, you're only talking about rights as defined in the constitution. I'm talking about the ethical concept of rights not the legal concept of rights.

im fairly certain it is, or they would have had no case against the bakery.

And the Berkeley mayor that held back the police? Does he not count as government, or is that just written off as completely separate?

oh god yes, everything, EVERYTHING ive said is strictly legally speaking.

but that's how you have to interpret it.

Nice

Surprisingly it isn't. Last I heard about Shmorky, those kiwi faggots drove him nuts enough to get institutionalized.

Free speech exists in both the legal sense, through rights that protect you from the government, and the philosophical sense, in which people believe in the marketplace of ideas and unrestricted exchange. Obviously, the legal sense was borne out of the philosophical sense as a necessary function of good government and fair democracy. You wouldn't need any other legal free speech protections in more sane times because violent degenerates who tried to storm your platform would be thrown in prison, but unfortunately they have been enabled by a corrupt and decadent leadership. It's a shame that nobody reads their history anymore; otherwise we wouldn't be following in the trajectory of the Weimar Republic. The condescending and violent left is asking for modern-day Brownshirts to rise up against them in self-defense and pre-emptive strikes, and the public will applaud for it for dishing out justice against political bullies.

If we're going based on the letter of the law, there is no law against discrimination of gays. Only blacks, women, muslims, poles etc.

Why? Is it because that's how the strawman in the OP comic meant it?

Berkeley mayor held back police? can you explain this, im interested, have a link? that does sound a bit more sketchy

>The government isn't locking anybody up for right-wing opinions
BUT THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT YOU WANT
Also
>Milo
>White Nationalist
What did she mean by this?
Also pic related.

i 100% agree with you. but i am only strictly talking legality in the United States, with the laws currently in place

Berkeley mayor is a member of BAMN iirc

>You can't use free speech as an argument.
You can't use violence to stop POTENTIAL violence. Hate speech is protected under free speech until someone acts upon it IMMEDIATELY. Not a week, not a day, not even a few hours, it only looses protection after immediate hostilities that infringe on others.

With that being the case, AntiFaggots are the biggest fascist out there right now as they seem to do violence and destruction during their speeches when it is being instigated by the speaker.

t. I read into major court decisions affecting our rights.

>White Nationalism
Show us where it has work other then your dreams dicklet.

Refute this /po/

1st box is cringe

2nd box is what I assume the """arguments""" are?

3rd box is what I hope is supposed to be a joke, if so it's hilarious how wrong and in denial someone can be.

>The government is not locking up any right-wing bigots or stopping them from spreading their hate.

Free Speech =/= Hate Speech

>To stop this awful man who incites harassment and violence against trans women, muslims, and people of color.

>Middle aged citizens and delusional brainwashed students dindu

Straw man made. Completely "forgot" to include gay man, and instead opted to replace it with awful man trying to get people to hate him.

Milo never incited harassment and violence against trans ""women"", muslims, and people of color.

If you have evidence of Milo doing so post it.

>So why do you keep going on (x2) about free speech.

It's one of our amendments people like you try to belittle. Silencing someone and attacking people who attended just because they share a different opinion then you, shouldn't be seen alright by anyone especially if you live in the U.S.

>Refute this poltards. Pro tip: you can't.

A. OP is baiting
B. OP is a faggot
C. OP is joking by saying "you can't." obviously knowing we can and whoever made this comic is retarded.

(Probably A.)

Bait threads are fun though

I know. That's why I made the distinction between the legal and the philosophical senses. People still have the right to call ANTIFA assaults an affront to free speech because that's what's they're trying to do. Shutting down public discourse, intimidating opposition, and monopolizing public beliefs is their modus operandi, and if the government doesn't provide their duty of keeping public order, then they will have successfully destroyed free speech.

They now are a protected class. Think it was passed during Obama.
and yes, because that's how the comic meant it.

I personally dont agree with censorship like this, i absolutely think they should have let him talk. Censoring someone shows you are afraid their ideas hold weight. if he truly is so crazy and radical, his ideas would fall through naturally, even if he is given a platform to give them

Because the list of legally protected classes includes sex, and then they add the caveat that some commission interprets sex to mean gender identity too. So it's not exactly enshrined very solidly in law at all.

Is it a drawn image with text that relates to Sup Forums's community thread?

heard it too...told the police basically to maintain prescence only

()

>the government isn't locking up right ringers or stopping them
DELUSION

America was SUPPOSED to be for "any free white man of good moral character" but it got all fucked up. The USA should have been the country for all the white races blended together into one.

What points were made?

So, what does the tranny look like, that drew this?

I don't give a shit about Milo, but to the best of my knowledge he's never called for violence against anyone.

You don' t wanna know trust me.

Milo was a miscegnatory faggot kike and I'm glad that the left exhausted themselves attacking him and then eventually weakened him enough for him to leave the limelight for at least long enough for the rest of the alt-lite movement to be driven further right through both soft radicalization of already existing public figures and the introduction of already more radical figures.

If the left thinks they're doing anything more than digging their own hole deeper then what possible reason would I have to dissuade them from doing so?

Made me think of her, for some reason. Also, I love the Jewish comment she made.

youtube.com/watch?v=0EC-Di1CRP4&t=4m5s

I don't think they are. I'm looking through the list of protected classes and don't see it.

And I don't think he would mean free speech in a legal sense unless he was actually arguing that what they did was illegal, when most would rather argue that it was unethical.

>female muslim cock
>female cock

Who drew this?

As if the government are the only people who can police speech
>CNN doxxing isn't against free speech
KYS you fucking retard.

>he doesn't know about female cock

Give it time, it will happen. Europe will be cleansed from shitskins and muzzrats

This actually gives me a boner, I'm not gay though

Weaksauce, OP. Weeeeeeaksauce.

You cannot simply say that just because in your opinion someone was inciting violence with no proof of it, that it's justifiable to try and silence it, which is exactly what the that image is trying to convey. That is trying to infringe on that person's free speech. However, the people who go after Milo are the same SJW faggots who tweet and upvote posts that say they are ok with White people being killed, genocided, culled, harmed, without even batting an eye, and there is proof already that they have incited violence against white people because there are the many reported incidents that prove it as well as video proof as seen at and taken from recordings at free speech rallies and protests.

OP, the creator of that image and you, which is more than likely the same thing, is trying to essentially fit a wrong sized shoe on a foot and try as you might, even with the shoehorn of PC culture, it just isn't working.
So, in conclusion, the shoe doesn't fit so you can eat a dick, OP.

Don't let your internet friends find out.

>Give it time.
>It wasn't done right before.
Typical Ethnic Commie.

>Violently attacking people who disagree with you doesn't violate their free speech

I shouldn't even be replying, but sage

Oh, and not just white people either. Anyone who identifies as a Trump supporter or doesn't support them. Note the antifa faggot trying to block the view so they can try and get away with their bullshit. Note that the transfaggot that would have been or has been seen marching against Milo initiated both the verbal and physical assault.
youtube.com/watch?v=uprofx1iID8

You don't have a leg to stand on in this argument. You should symbolically print that webcomic out and then burn it.

The more I look at this car the more questions I have.

I would have expected a Hoppean to understand the need for a high trust society.
There hasn't been a white nationalist country since about half way through the 20th century, but before that it worked pretty well in America and most of Europe.

That was by de facto you fucking fruit.

>Makes fun of free speech by calling it Freeze Peach
>Continues to exercise her freeze peach with wall of text I didn't even read
Would bloodbath/11.

I think the quote was said earlier in this thread "free white men of good moral character". Doesn't that make it de jure?