Wore my ironic band T for the first time today (ive worn it before tehcnically but under a sweatshirt)

>wore my ironic band T for the first time today (ive worn it before tehcnically but under a sweatshirt)
>almost got my ass kicked by some guy and his gf in my composition class
>skipped my creative writting class to go back to the dorm and get changed
idk if theyve never heard of the badn or if they thought I actually liked it, but i justthought that because I was at art school people wouldnt be plebs

it says skinhead on it dumbass why do you think he beat your ass

its ironic you nonce
No actual racist person would wear a shirt that says "skinhead" on it, especially aound a fairly liberal very high brow community like the one my university is in

Should've learned 'em a thing or two about skinhead culture and that. I imagine they were bigger than you though and you got scared and there's no shame in that.

Not realising it's obviously bait

good bait

I can't blame those two for wanting to kick your ass.

Agnostic Front sucks shit!

(But why are you posting an e-bay pic?)

Enjoy the leftists shithole universities have become. Even if you were a real skinhead, they have no right to use violence on you for wearing a T-shirt.

>not punching a nazi

good bait

>making Nazis a persecuted group
>thinking this doesn't feed into their narrative

>w-why can't i use m-my ebay nazi m-memorabilia outside t-the house?

lel

what do you suggest we do against the rise of a new white nationalist movement? i'm not saying punching stops them, but what would?

>I should be able to punch people whom ideological views of the world come into conflict with mine, despite the fact those people have yet to commit a physical violence act on me. I have the sole, inequitable right to initiate violence without repercussion as I own the higher moral ground.


So, you're the good guys, right?

You got what you deserved

NAZI PUNKS FUCK OFF

Take over the media with anti-white media
White nationalism must be stopped!! OYE VEY

Free speech, and the free assortment of ideas will do the trick just fine. Stop trying to silence or punching people for expressing themselves, and let society sort themselves out. Of course, you're free to pose your opinion against them too, that's absolutely fine.

you are an idiot

I know I'm gonna sound yellow saying this, but honestly reasoned, unpatronising debate usually does the trick. No-one changes their mind by being shouted at, but if you show someone's wrong without making them look a fool they'll usually come around to a different way of thinking.

>"if we get into a position of power we will use it for ethnic cleansing"
>wtf we need to stop these people
>"you guys are the bad guys!"

>hate speech should be just as legitimate as other opinions

It's way past your bed time kid.

>the good guys
nah I just think nazis should get the shit kicked out of them
You're looking at this the wrong way

Yeah, but the "facts" technically support them, thats why them must be wall'd or sent tot he gulag

ITT

>Free speech, and the free assortment of ideas will do the trick just fine.
How do you come to this conclusion? I'd love to believe this but right now it just looks like free speech is the perfect excuse for these people to voice their hateful views without consequence.
I agree. But from my experience a lot of these people can't be talked with sadly. They hide behind 10 layers of "sarcasm" and memes.
What facts?

>People are too stupid to think for themselves, so we'll just use physical violence on anyone that disagrees with us, that'll show the general public we are the reasonable people

Seriously, this behavior you exhibit has greatly contributed to Donald Trump's success.

Same goes for you, who are you to dictate what constitutes as hate speech? Anyone can feel offended for anything that is said, it is not the speakers responsibility to take care of your feelings.

A world where you walk in eggshells and watch your every word to avoid repercussion, sounds a lot like living under dictatorship rule.

Irony is dead, user. It's all about sincerity now.

>what constitutes as hate speech
i dunno, maybe advocating for the removal of entire races from society?

>How do you come to this conclusion? I'd love to believe this but right now it just looks like free speech is the perfect excuse for these people to voice their hateful views without consequence.

Because people have the freedom to chose what to believe in? I don't want anyone manipulating the information I receive to further their agenda, anyone can become corrupt. Only by allowing every idea to be freely expressed and debated we can value the ''pros and cons'' if you will, and the logic consistency of them. Plus you achieve nothing by trying to silence others, besides creating more heat and pressure until it blows up in your face.

>who are you to dictate what constitutes as hate speech
Anything that promotes hatred towards other race/ethnicity/nationality/religion.

It's not that hard user and nobody is forbidding you to hate and wish murder upon other groups of people. Just keep it to your dumb self.

pretty much 80% of Sup Forums

everybody's a libcuck around here, it's embarrassing

most of this board is 16-20 year olds who took lsd once, they'll grow out of it

That's your view on it, others will argue ethnic cleansing is securing the survival of their people in their own country. But the core of this argument, at least for me, is that people should be allowed to see all the options available and dictate which ones they like best, if in the very strange case that the American people decided to agree, by majority, that ethnic cleansing is the way to go, well then. Who are you to stop the will of the people?


Countries can make decisions for themselves, you know?

>whines about freedom
>advocates for a violation of basic human rights and natural law

>numale
>libcuck
>they'll grow out of it
I think it's you who needs to grow up

I'll ask my question again. Who are you to dictate what constitutes as hate speech?

Life, progress, evolution doesn't work by ignoring what we don't like, it works by facing it straight on and adapting. Circumcising a society from being able to express disagreement towards ideals because those who claim membership to it might feel offended inhibits progress, and creates a literal, fucking turd. It's by expressing how vile Christian-ism was in years past that groups such as the LGBT have experienced a tremendous amount of support and acceptance.

No one can claim the right to dictate what can and cannot be said, that's just tyranny, there's no other way around it.

This bullshit just shows how harmful liberal ideology is. No we as people don't have to accept every "opinion", and most definitly not as harmful "opinions" as ethnic cleansing. People like you allow things like the holocaust to happen by saying "oh everybody is allowed to have their opinion, if its the will of the people so it be". By taking no side you are taking the side of the oppressive people.

>>advocates for a violation of basic human rights and natural law

Point them out, I can't see them.

>ethnic cleansing

yeah speech should only consist of opinions you agree with.

>Circumcising a society from being able to express disagreement towards ideals because those who claim membership to it might feel offended inhibits progress
Yes, because the world failed to thrive because 20th century Nationalist movements were eradicated.

>Anyone can feel offended for anything that is said

slick slippery slope ya got there

Try again, point out where I advocate the violation of basic human rights.

>ethnic cleansing

You're implying the world wouldn't had continued thriving even if the outcome of WW2 had been any different, which is kinda funny. We are not talking about the whole world here anyway, buddy. We are talking about societies.

Please focus.


Explain who that's a slippery slope.

You don't think ethnic cleansing is a violation of basic human rights?

You keep failing to point out where I advocate for ethnic cleansing. All I've done so far is to advocate for the right of people to not be silence for expressing their views and for the right of people to acquire information from all sides of an argument, without someone manipulating the information to further their own agenda.

>You're implying the world wouldn't had continued thriving even if the outcome of WW2 had been any different
Ah, the old switcharoo. No dummy, you were the one that came up with the whole 'inhibiting progress' shtick. I can't see any evidence of it.

...

You need only look at our past and see how ideology has ruled the lives of people, but in a sense you are right, inhibit is not truly an adequate term. After all, whether you try to stop it or not, sudden or later it keeps moving on.

Replace ''inhibits'' with ''Slows down''.

Look, if one side of the argument calls for murder of people that don't conform with their views, it's not worth having the discussion is it? It boggles the mind that people like you exist on this planet. I guess if someone knifes you during a discussion you'd die a happy man.

>if in the very strange case that the American people decided to agree, by majority, that ethnic cleansing is the way to go, well then.
if ethnic cleansing was happening you wouldn't be against it apparently. because if the majority is for it that makes it okay right?

A movement that has killed millions and people and is based on taking away human rights is not a view that should be expressed.

No one is calling you a nazi, just a dumbass

The issue is that you guys see a debate on a topic you disagree with, on the same level as a physical threat to your life. Ethnic cleasing is one think, but the truth is this political correctness extends into a lot of other topics, and as long as one party claims to be offended, ideas will be silenced.

I don't advocate for ethnic cleansing of minorities, as I am not even white myself. I am still not going to kill/punch a nazi because he might say something I don't like.

why did reddit and tumblr have to invade a board that I liked

>A movement that has killed millions and people and is based on taking away human rights is not a view that should be expressed.

So Islam shouldn't be allowed to be expressed?Socialism shouldn't be allowed to be expressed? Communism? Christianism? Buddishm? Any fucking ideological movement ever?

>I am still not going to kill/punch a nazi because he might say something I don't like.
I'm not saying that. You said you would accept ethnic cleansing at actually happening if the majority of people would be for it. Would you accept it or would you fight against it?

I would get the fuck out of that country, that's what I would do.

>Reddit and tumblr boogeyman
You're just pissed that everyone isn't a pol dweller who finds joy in shocking people with their edgy opinions

These ideologies (at least socialism and communism, I don't know much about religion) don't have the killing of people based on their identiy they were born with (race, sexuality) as part of their theory. Nazism does. That's a pretty big difference there. Religions like Islam and Christianity probably do have some of that bullshit in their holy books, but you know damn well that muslims and christians living in the developed world don't advocate for this nowadays and therefor are not a threat either. Radical Islamism in the middle east is definitlyl a threat though.

Sure thing. But would people fighting against it be doing something good or would they be the bad guys because the majority decided for ethnic cleansing so its okay and they have to accept it now?

Why does that matter if they present themselves as targeting anyone specific if the ideologies cause the the death of millions as a consequence of it? The point is that you can't dictate what's cool and not cool to say, full stop. It's up to the people to decide if what you say is cool or not, involving the law or using physical violence to silence others is tyranny, and that's the whole point.

That's for the people writing the history books to decide, as it's always been. There's no moral absolutes, my friend. Welcome to the grim reality of moral grey areas.

>the ideologies cause the the death of millions as a consequence of it
Ideologies often get twisted for the political goals of men, same as religion. All of this is of course reprehensible.

It's also pointless to argue which ideology or religion is responsible for more deaths. That's the kind of retard math Sup Forums frequently does.

What you can argue about, are the values behind each of them. Nationalism by definition can be looked at from two angles but it's always an exclusive ideology. It creates division and promotes certain groups above others in society based on criteria of ethnicity, religion, etc. That's why it's morally wrong and shouldn't be promoted in any kind of shape or form.

The problem is that people people like you don't even want to have the discussion. Why do you think it's impossible to change a racist's opinion? Is it because you're so stupid, that you can't argue against ethnic cleansing without resorting to violence?

I think that's not a grey area at all. Fighting against oppressive people who activly kill ethnic minorities isn't grey at all. Can you really not decide if the nazis were the bad guys or not?

Oh I definitly won't have a discussion if ethnic cleansing is okay or not. That's really not worth a discussion. I think you are insane if you think that's actually worth a discussion. How fucked up do you have to be to think killing people based on their ethnicity is okay?

> Nationalism by definition can be looked at from two angles but it's always an exclusive ideology.
The people from a country have the right to decide if they want to let anyone in their country, you know? It's really not very hard to understand
>That's why it's morally wrong and shouldn't be promoted in any kind of shape or form
Says who? That's just you trying to impose your views on national socialism, really.


So you think the Allied powers were saints? There's no good or bad guys, buddy. It's all a conflict of interests.

What if the ethnic cleansing is done pacifically, to preserve the original people of that country? After all, if you import Population B into Population A, sooner or later population A will cease to exist.

Is that not an ethnic cleansing of sorts? Do you believe it is not ok for people to want to preserve their own genetic and cultural characteristics?

>Says who?
The Declaration of Independence

>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

you do know the USSR was part of the allies right? OF COURSE YOU KNOW THE GENOCIDES COMMITTED BY THE USSR RIGHT? YOU DO KNOW CHURCHILL DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE INDIANS INDEPENDENCE RIGHT??? yes the nazis were terrible, every country involved was terrible to a certain degree

Tell me again some nationalism opposes the declaration of independence.

>doesn't consider all men to be equal
>doesn't oppose the declaration of independence

You only get to pick one.

in theory there is nothing wrong with this but you can't "pacifically" force an entire ethnic group out of a country, especially seeing as the only places with significant ethnic diversity are developed countries you can't just politely ask people to return to the third world

>What if the ethnic cleansing is done pacifically, to preserve the original people of that country?
I can only answer that if you tell me a method this can be done with. If it invovles not allowing interracial couples to have children then that's not peacful. I doubt there are any peaceful methods for ethnic cleansing but please tell me one.
>After all, if you import Population B into Population A, sooner or later population A will cease to exist. Is that not an ethnic cleansing of sorts?
No, that is not ethnic cleansing. "thnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous.". And you make it sound as if these people are activley brought into the country by some sort of elite to cleanse the country from white people. But that's not the case so it's not an argument.
>Do you believe it is not ok for people to want to preserve their own genetic and cultural characteristics?
Sure it is ok. Marry a white women and get white children if you want to. Teach them christianity or whatever religion your think is the truth. But don't force your believes on the entire population, thats tyranny.

and if you want to preserve "muh genetic characteristics" then fuck someone of your own race, it's that simple

I'm talking about individual rebel groups that fought against them from withinside germany. People that disagreed with the regime and its actions and therefor actively fought against it.

You can enforce it without killing them, as we do when deporting illegal aliens.

Tell me again how nationalism opposes that all men are equal.

So you are saying collecting all colored people and deporting them to a different country against their will is peacful? (By the way, what makes you think that country you are deporting them to is okay with that? You know there are colored people being born inside of america as american citizens right? Why does some other country have to take these americans now and why should they allow this?)

you see the key word is "enforce" buddy, nothing peaceful about using force. here's a win-win solution! YOU, the person who whines about "muh genetic characteristics" fuck someone of your own race without forcing people ethnically originating from the third world out, allowing them to live in a country that isn't shitty and have decent lives

But what if by ethnic cleansing, they meant the slow and peaceful decline of non-white races by way of economic incentives (like tax breaks)for whites?

I'm not saying it's right, but you don't care enough to educate the person on how their wrong. If somebody was told that the earth was flat since their birth, do you think that telling them, "wow, you must be stupid, I'm not even going to waste my time explaining it to you" or beating them up, is going to change their mind?
This is how ideologues stay ideologues.

>muh aryan race
I get it, you're deflecting. If you're not, go read a fucking book.

My argument stops at "I don't think people should be treated differently based on the ethnicity by the law." Their argument will stop at "I think that's okay." What discussion can you actually have there?

>Ay bro u wanna throw disc
>For sure
>Ay what's ur shirt say bro
>It's a band shirt
>THE SYSTEMIC FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE OF A MARXIST-LENINIST PERSPECTIVE I COULD GO ON LET ME FINISH BRO LET ME FINISH
fucking nu males man feels good

All I am saying if that people want to decide not to allow others from ''shitty countries'' in, they have the right to do. Wow.

I can't see how deporting people instead of not killing them is not peaceful to you once it's been decided they are committing a crime.

>So you are saying collecting all colored people and deporting them to a different country against their will is peacful?

So you're telling me ICE deporting illegal aliens are not being peaceful?

Recommend me one. I am mixed race, by the way.

Backpaddeling this much... You were talking about deporting all colored people and not just about illegals or criminals.

friendly reminder actual free speech is more important than whatever flavor of the month ideology you adhere to, and you are allowed to be the crypto-fascist you are because someone once was offensive enough to say peasants have the same rights and value than kings and gods free speech is what keep the societies evolving, so the control of it is a top priority for tyrants

>Recommend me one
On Nationalism? I'll recommend two.

Eric Hobsbawm - Nations and Nationalism since 1780
Benedict Anderson - Imagined Communities

A good point, free speech is the most important thing.

It's because it doesn't matter, discussing nationalism was never my intention. My whole point was that you should not be allowed to use physical violence to silence the opinions of others or get the movement to protect you from hearing views you disagree with.

>being a different race
>"committing a crime"
I hope this is a joke
also I never said anything about allowing immigrants in, I'm saying that you shouldn't kick people that are already part of the society itself out because of their race

That's fine, you having that view point is perfectly fine mate. What's not fine is you kicking others in the head because they disagree with you.

Real skinheads aren't Nazis btw

Why is free speech more important than the freedom of not getting killed based on your race?

how did I "kick others in the head"? by arguing with them?

Because no one is getting killed by discussing opinions?

You're not, but this is how this debate started. There's no ID so I can't tell who is who.

Have you never had a debate before? All you've done right there is state your platform. After that, you begin talking about why you beleive in what you believe...
I'm just going assume that you actually do know how to convince someone of something, and you actually just believe that people who want ethnic cleansing, can't be convinced of the opposite.

Nope, you're right.

>free speech
>racially motivated murder

what's the link? what the fuck are you talking about? we have laws against murder just like we have laws protecting our right to free speech.