September 15, 2025Sep 15 8 minutes ago, novacova said: Nice descriptive of yourself as one being stuck in a bubble incapable of peering in. One thing is very clear to most of us peering in, is that the left has moved into a state of complete disarray and confusion and are now trying to argue and rationalize their way through the mess that they themselves have chosen to put themselves into. That is exactly where you are now, clearly. Take off your shades. Its urgent. You're still captured in your narratives and stereotypes. Think outside the box.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 15 minutes ago, JonnyF said: And if he had killed Uni students instead, the left wouldn't be laughing as much and making so many TikTok videos celebrating it. If he’d have killed school kids instead the right would be offering thoughts and prayers, declaring this not the time to talk about gun controls and rightwing talk radio hosts would be declaring the killings a fabricated lie.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 1 minute ago, WDSmart said: Even if your first sentence above is correct, you, the right, should not use any tactics you consider "dirty." If you do, then you are just as bad as your opponents, and neither one of you deserves to prevail, because then, we'd all just have a "dirty" country. In other words, "We, the left, can kick you in the gonads but you cannot kick us in the gonads". Sorry Bro, doesn't work like that.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 this has nothing to do with free speach but totally about the lefts hate for the right, celebrating the murder/assination of someone due to a different point of view is pathetic and shows just how demented the ones making these agregious statements are. Debating differences of opinions is how it should be, Charlie did that always, he had his own thoughts/opinions but let others debate them with no physical violence but those with different opinions couldnt handle the fact he disagreed with them & they celebrate his murder because no one is allowed to have a different opinion to them.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 Popular Post As a non-American, all I can see from here is a country tearing itself apart, destroying its credibility as a World leader, and imploding into civil war. Filled with bigoted, ill-educated, moronic voters too stupid to see how poisonous all... yes all....their politicians, top-to-bottom and side-to-side, actually are. And, to see how corrupt and easily manipulated their entire judicial system, from SCOTUS to deputy sheriff, has become.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 Just now, JonnyF said: So what if it DOES advocate violence? Is it no longer hate speech? Hate speech can advocate violence, but not all hate speech advocates violence. As far as I'm concerned, many of the Charlie Kirk quotes I've seen are hate speech (racist/misogynistic/anti-LBGT/anti-trans), but I've not read any quotes that advocate violence.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said: If he’d have killed school kids instead the right would be offering thoughts and prayers, declaring this not the time to talk about gun controls and rightwing talk radio hosts would be declaring the killings a fabricated lie. Cool story Bro. Did you get that from The Guardian?
September 15, 2025Sep 15 1 minute ago, JonnyF said: In other words, "We, the left, can kick you in the gonads but you cannot kick us in the gonads". Sorry Bro, doesn't work like that. What I'm saying is applicable to both sides. We, the Left, should not use any tactics we consider "dirty" either.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 1 minute ago, WDSmart said: Hate speech can advocate violence, but not all hate speech advocates violence. As far as I'm concerned, many of the Charlie Kirk quotes I've seen are hate speech (racist/misogynistic/anti-LBGT/anti-trans), but I've not read any quotes that advocate violence. But you said free speech can be hate speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence. So what if it DOES advocate violence? You have stated it cannot be hate speech. So what is it? A straight answer will do. This time...
September 15, 2025Sep 15 2 minutes ago, WDSmart said: What I'm saying is applicable to both sides. We, the Left, should not use any tactics we consider "dirty" either. Yes, you are saying that now that the right is also using the tactic.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 8 minutes ago, Grusa said: As a non-American, all I can see from here is a country tearing itself apart, destroying its credibility as a World leader, and imploding into civil war. Filled with bigoted, ill-educated, moronic voters too stupid to see how poisonous all... yes all....their politicians, top-to-bottom and side-to-side, actually are. And, to see how corrupt and easily manipulated their entire judicial system, from SCOTUS to deputy sheriff, has become. Still the best country in the world by a mile. I dont see people trying to immigrate anywhere else
September 15, 2025Sep 15 2 hours ago, WDSmart said: Well, so much for the Right's claim to want to protect free speech... 🥺 Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom of consequence. Especially in the workplace.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 8 minutes ago, JonnyF said: But you said free speech can be hate speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence. So what if it DOES advocate violence? You have stated it cannot be hate speech. So what is it? A straight answer will do. This time... If any speech, including hate speech, advocates violence, then it is not free speech. If any speech, including hate speech, does NOT advocate violence, then it is free speech. That's how I see it anyway...
September 15, 2025Sep 15 9 minutes ago, JonnyF said: Yes, you are saying that now that the right is also using the tactic. Yes.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 4 minutes ago, TDCNINJA said: Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom of consequence. Especially in the workplace. IMO, if someone is fired from a job because of a political opinion they expressed, as long as it did not advocate violence, then that is a violation of their Constitutional right to Free Speech, and they should be sued for that.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 2 hours ago, WDSmart said: Well, so much for the Right's claim to want to protect free speech... 🥺 No, we do want free speech, but when our guy toured campuses offering it he was shot in the head by a leftist. So now, that this offer of free speech was met with deadly violence, clearly the gloves will come off.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 Just now, WDSmart said: If any speech, including hate speech, advocates violence, then it is not free speech. If any speech, including hate speech, does NOT advocate violence, then it is free speech. That's how I see it anyway... Not what you originally wrote though. 😆 I'll allow you to gracefully/gradually change your position to save face though. I'm nice like that. If you don't reply to this post I will not point out your error in logic again.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 1 minute ago, JonnyF said: Not what you originally wrote though. 😆 I'll allow you to gracefully/gradually change your position to save face though. I'm nice like that. If you don't reply to this post I will not point out your error in logic again. I'd like you to point out my error. I don't think I made one. If I did, I would acknowledge it. If I didn't, I'd like you to acknowledge that.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 3 minutes ago, Cameroni said: No, we do want free speech, but when our guy toured campuses offering it he was shot in the head by a leftist. So now, that this offer of free speech was met with deadly violence, clearly the gloves will come off. So now that you believe someone's done something bad to you, you believe it's okay for you to do something bad to them as revenge?
September 15, 2025Sep 15 11 minutes ago, angryguy said: Still the best country in the world by a mile. Certainly a great country. That's why people want to live there instead of the third world hell holes they come from. 11 minutes ago, angryguy said: I dont see people trying to immigrate anywhere else You might want to walk around London for an hour. Top tip ; Don't take you phone out of your pocket.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 3 minutes ago, WDSmart said: So now that you believe someone's done something bad to you, you believe it's okay for you to do something bad to them as revenge? Self-defense is not bad. It's a necessity. You can't have free speech intercourse with people who want to shoot you in the head. We tried. Look what happened.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 2 minutes ago, WDSmart said: I'd like you to point out my error. I don't think I made one. If I did, I would acknowledge it. If I didn't, I'd like you to acknowledge that. OK. I will. You said. And I quote... free speech can be hate speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence. Let's say xxxx represents a racial slur. Choose your own. Works best with a bad one. So if I say "Michael Green is a dirty xxxx", that is hate speech by your definition. But if I say "Michael Green is a dirty xxxx and someone should punch him in the nuts", that is NOT hate speech by your definition. That does not make any sense.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 26 minutes ago, angryguy said: Still the best country in the world by a mile. I dont see people trying to immigrate anywhere else The word is 'emigrate,' and Americans are moving out by the score. That you don't see it is only because Fox News and TruthSocial don't report it. Try some news sources from other countries. They are reporting the increase in Visa applications from the US.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 As JD Vance stressed in Munich, in February, the threat comes from censoring free speech (among other issues). "He alleged European Union "commissars" were suppressing free speech." Hypocrisy much? https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/vance-uses-munich-speech-criticize-europe-censoring-free-speech-2025-02-14/ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ceve3wl21x1o
September 15, 2025Sep 15 10 minutes ago, WDSmart said: So now that you believe someone's done something bad to you, you believe it's okay for you to do something bad to them as revenge? Not necessarily as revenge. Possibly that. But certainly as a deterrent. Isn't that pretty much the definition of penal justice? You committ a crime and go to jail. In some countries you are executed or physically harmed in some way e.g. hands cut off in Saudi Arabia for stealing. All societies have this concept in some form. As do most religions. An eye for an eye being the most well known phrase in western societies. The alternative would be that you should be allowed to hurt someone but that they are not allowed to hurt you. That doesn't make sense. Where is the deterrent for them to not continue hurting you or someone else?
September 15, 2025Sep 15 4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: Whatever happened to the defense of ‘hurty words’? Whatever happened to "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences"?
September 15, 2025Sep 15 13 minutes ago, JonnyF said: OK. I will. You said. And I quote... free speech can be hate speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence. Let's say xxxx represents a racial slur. Choose your own. Works best with a bad one. So if I say "Michael Green is a dirty xxxx", that is hate speech by your definition. But if I say "Michael Green is a dirty xxxx and someone should punch him in the nuts", that is NOT hate speech by your definition. That does not make any sense. Okay, how about this... Free speech can be hate speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence. Free speech can be political speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence. Free speech can be racist speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence. Free speech can be misogynistic speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence. Free speech can be anti-trans speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence. ...etc. Does what I said make sense to you now? Or if I changed the order of the terms, would that be better for you? Hate speech can be free speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence.
September 15, 2025Sep 15 Young leftist woman literally dancing in the street singing "Fxxk, your homie's dead".
Create an account or sign in to comment