>liibertarians are free speech absolutists >conservatives/liberals love free speech except when it's something they don't like >anonymous nerds: "rape threats on twitter against feminists aren't bad, it's just speech, nuthin rong wit dat"
and yet everyone has their point of hypocrisy. just watch how many trumptards will bend themselves into pretzels arguing how this is so terrible, all while arguing for free speech. just watch.. >inb4 libtards/conservacucks are hypocrites (no shit retard, that's the point, all are hypocrites).
Speech should never have any consequences except if a company doesn't want to employ someone who said what you said because it causes them negative business. Racist thoughts and speech are not a problem in the slightest. Racist ACTIONS are a problem. In terms of actions, no matter how we feel about someone or what we say about them, we should act as if we acknowledge their basic human rights and respect those. This applies to ANYONE except those who have already done actions to warrant the loss of those.
For example, suppose that a racist calls someone a nigger. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that because it's free speech. Now if the racist attacks someone that's obviously a problem. Now suppose someone calls a black person a nigger and the black person goes in a nigger rage. The blame is solely on the nigger.
Suppose a racist says hateful speech but does absolutely no actions. He has literally done nothing wrong, and anyone who takes away the racist's basic human rights through violent or harmful actions is a scumbag.
>>734321911 Only liberals are hypocrites. We want free speech for everyone. Liberals only want free speech if it suppresses everyone else.
>Making death threats to the president is considered terrorism >why are you defending terrorism >if conservatives made a mockery of any liberal beheading they would be in jail/ murdered/ blasted across CNN retardation
Get a better country view. Obviously you live in a bubble and only watch CNN/ Buzzfeed.
Educate yourself. FFS does anyone look up facts or do they just get random thoughts in their head and decide thats todays reality?
>>734321911 Because conservatives believe the government has no right to regulate speech. Though just because you CAN say anything doesn't mean you SHOULD. The point of conservatism is that it's the responsibility of individuals to have the decency and ethics to not do crap like this. The other point is, when someone DOES cross the line, it's the people that respond in support or protest (like they're doing now) without government intervention.
It's worth noting that direct or even implied threats against the President, VP, or pretty much any elected official is a violation of federal law too (if you threaten or encourage others to threaten). She's fucked.
>>734322690 i agree with all but the first part, say for example an accountant moonlights as a standup comedian and tells a racist joke, he shouldn't lose his job, if however he tells this joke at work i could understand firing him over that
hate speech in the workplace causes a disruptive work environment and will lose the company money, outside of work your speech shouldn't effect work
Opinions are manufactured by your observations of your surroundings. What if your surroundings as a whole are manufactured too? Opinions are the new divider, and the powers at be are happy we're right where they want us.
>>734322879 >Only liberals are hypocrites. you must be 5 years old, because you weren't around to remember that conservatives were the OG anti-free-speech folks. it'd be even funnier to learn you're actually old enough to know the 80s and yet still live in denial of this ;)
everyone who is an ideologue (libs, cons, libertarians) has their inflection point, past which they become hypocrites. It just takes time to discover it, but it's there.
>>734323077 If he's telling a joke then everyone should acknowledge it's a joke. His intentions were a joke at either location he tells it. There was absolutely no hate in his speech in either location regardless of the words said.
If someone found hate in it when it clearly wasn't there, then the fault lies in the person who heard the speech, and the company should fire the person who gets butthurt instead of the person who clearly said a joke assuming that the situation can't be resolved peacefully without any hate.
>>734321911 Don't worry anon, I'm going to balance things out by putting on an Obama mask on a dummy and hanging it in my front yard from a tree. No one would have gotten angry at me for that during the Obama administration because he could take a joke. You would have thought it was funny as hell right? If not then I'm sorry I held a fake head of Donald trump, I'm sorry, I moved the line then I pushed the line I'm sorry, I didn't mean to, I'm sorry. Please forgive me.
>>734323657 Yeah and we took him down, because he was a bigot, but I was just trying to be funny and make a political statement. That doesn't mean I'm out of touch with America. I am valid, I'm Kathy griffin and I am a d-list celebrity in Hollywood and we are in touch with American sensibilities.
>>734324474 >I didn't know flag burning was speech. What do I say out of my mouth that magically causes a flag to spontaneously combust? speech is not the only thing that is protected by the first amendment. many forms of communication are: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/310/ >The Government concedes, as it must, that appellees' flag-burning constituted expressive conduct expressive conduct >It is true that this Act, unlike the Texas law, contains no explicit content-based limitation on the scope of prohibited conduct. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Government's asserted interest in protecting the "physical integrity" of a privately owned flag in order to preserve the flag's status as a symbol of the Nation and certain national ideals is related to the suppression, and concerned with the content, of free expression. The mere destruction or disfigurement of a symbol's physical manifestation does not diminish or otherwise affect the symbol itself. The Government's interest is implicated only when a person's treatment of the flag communicates a message to others that is inconsistent with the identified ideals.
>>734324827 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/397/ expressive conduct. your feelings are not protected. >During the 1984 Republican National Convention, respondent Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and some Dallas-based corporations. >After a march through the city streets, Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted. >No one was physically injured or threatened with injury, although several witnesses were seriously offended by the flag burning. Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute, and a state court of appeals affirmed. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the State, consistent with the First Amendment, could not punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances. >The court first found that Johnson's burning of the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court concluded that the State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity.
>>734326052 >Your source is a magizine dedicated to leftists globalist agendas, and the complete defamation of conservative celebrities buzzfeed is the cancer of the internet and I'm glad they got sued, but even cancerous rags can occasionally spit out valid stories... all it takes is evidence from other sources. your dismissal is invalid; it's a variant of the ad-hominem fallacy.
>>734326388 The point is the bitch held up a mock head of the president covered in blood, something that isis does. If you really want the left to be taken seriously and you want me to take your argument seriously, then you need to consider that Kathy Griffin has done more damage to the image of liberals in general than anything that conservative could possibly concoct.Kathy Griffin has confirmed the fears the common person has about far left wing nuts like antifa by exposing their latent violent desires. As for your pic, nice projection friendo >:^)
>>734326911 When did libtards get so sensitive? Who cares about 32 gender identities. Who cares about depictions of Obama represented as a knuckle dragging ape? Who cares about effigies of Obama being burned, I guess liberals just sorta let that go by unnoticed and didn't say anything about it.
>>734326879 >Kathy Griffin has confirmed the fears the common person has about far left wing nuts like antifa by exposing their latent violent desires. except nowhere in American history have liberals ever compared in sheer violence and oppression to conservatives. ever. I imagine you're either very young, or willfully ignorant of the violence of the 60s, or the 50s, or the murders during the turn of the century committed by conservatives. I'm no friend to liberals, but when I see some antifa faggot, I laugh at the level of pussy... millenials have grips like girls of the 80s! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26869476 . but humorously, the point of this thread was how each side is HYPOCRITICAL ABOUT FREE SPEECH WHEN THEY DON'T LIKE IT. By arguing that her idiocy constitutes a "THREAT", you sound no different from Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn when they claim they're genuinely afraid from Twitter eggs' "rape THREATS." . neither threats against those whores nor the shit the griffin skank did are threats. stupid, in poor taste? yes, but neither is a threat and your arguing they are is deliciously ironic.
>>734321911 disclaimer- I'm socially left leaning except for on some key issues like free speech and some various men's rights issues (financial abortion, education system being skewed heavily in women's favor etc). Not MRA, but I think some of their points make a lot of sense.
I think nothing should be censored except that which incites violence. Depending on the context of a slur it could fall under that category. People have been way too harsh on comedians and regular people who are just making jokes in recent times.
This Kathy Griffin photo really blurs the line because it was (((supposedly))) created as a joke. She is a comedian, and she apologized for it almost immediately.
But it doesn't read as a joke at all and reads mostly as a terrorist death threat towards the highest government office of the country in which she resides.
So i really don't know what to think of this. But given that she apologized for her completely tone deaf photo, i'm inclined to chalk this one up to this woman just being fucking stupid as shit. --I don't think she actually wants to murder the president
>>734329047 If you watch the TMZ behind the scenes of the photoshoot you'll see hpw she KNEW she would get skewered for the pic... 44 seconds in https://www.google.com/amp/amp.tmz.com/2017/05/30/kathy-griffin-beheads-donald-trump-photo-tyler-shields
>>734321911 I actually thought it was funny, all press is good press. She would love to climb up on trumps cock so he could spray her old ass with god emperor cum. Its as close to god she will ever get.
>>734322690 >There is absolutely nothing wrong with that because it's free speech While i agree with general point of your post, i disagree with this particular point. As someone who was bullied i know how mere word can hurt.
Should hatespeech be punishable? No. Does that mean its not wrong? I dont think so.
>only liberals are hypocrites! >Obamacare is satan, we need to get rid of it Skip to 2017 >We need to REPLACE obamacare with our own healthcare, so WE look like good guys even if it fucks our constituents
I'd fuck her but only because I don't have a false sense of superiority to her and because I know what real women look like. Surprise faggots, they all look like shit without 4 pounds of foundation and makeup on their face. Melania looks like more of a man than Michelle without hers.
Human governance is finicky because logical ethics are not coincidental to moralism. Logical ethics require absolutist adherence to central tenets no matter what. Think the train track experiment. You have to push a button that kills one man, or saves ten. Unless you have demonstrable evidence that the single man's life will inevitably lead to saving more than ten people, you MUST save the other ten, unless you can demonstrably prove that by saving the ten will result in MORE than 11 deaths. BUT by a moralist standpoint, you should do nothing, because in one instance you have blood on your hands no matter what, and the other you have plausible absolution. This is where political affiliation breaks down and why everyone has their "hypocrisy." Logical ethics require constant, active agency. Moralism, which most all of humanity abides by, requires passive action and plausible deniability, agnostic of volition. So, that's why. Humans are not robots yet, so we are subject to ethical failing because of individual morality.
>>734321911 As a Trump supporter I can confirm that I am not in favor of free speech, nor was I ever. All speech for degeneracy against the God emperor should be punishable by death by impalement and we should be ruled by a strong fascist leader. /b/ should be eradicated. Stop putting words in my mouth.
>Spend less time on /b/ and your wife won't have to see Tyrone every day whole you're at work.
yes yes, the 8-year-old tactic of accusing someone you disagree with of cuckoldry. projection much?
>>Implying your slovenly ass has a job never made such an implication and it has no bearing on the point that both sides are hypocrites, faggot. but I do find it entertaining to see name calling and misrepresentations while COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT. try again, maybe you can do like they do in kindergarten and keep repeating some name... I bet after 30 times it will stick ;)
>>734332186 >yes yes, the 8-year-old tactic of accusing someone you disagree with of cuckoldry. projection much? Top kek How many EIGHT YEAR OLDS are telling you that Tyrone is dropping loads id your wife, faggot? Do you have something to tell us?
>>734332839 >How many EIGHT YEAR OLDS are telling you that Tyrone is dropping loads id your wife, faggot? Do you have something to tell us?
Every 8-year-old edgy faggot like you who spews vitriol fancying himself the next Christopher Hitchens, ignorant of the fact merely tossing around names doesn't an argument make.
Of course, this point is lost on 8-year-old summerfags since in your limited mind, name calling is a perfectly valid logical retort and it proves your point as well as a mathematical proof.
Don't get me wrong, I like calling names and don't decry the name calling, faggot, but the fact you present no valid argument nor do you ground your retorts in actual logical points leaves your efforts vacuous.
but as I said, faggots like you are just like the mentally ill: you are incapable of recognizing your own limited horizon and imagine the rest of us are as retarded as you, even when demonstrable points prove you to be the one without a single logical argument.
and when we finally ferret out your faggotry, you might actually rejoin with a pathetic excuse for an argument, only to parrot some faggoty talking point of your favorite ideologue...
but please, call me another name! I bet that will put me in my place!
>>734333429 >ignorant of the fact merely tossing around names doesn't an argument make >since in your limited mind, name calling is a perfectly valid logical retort and it proves your point as well as a mathematical proof >I like calling names and don't decry the name calling
> you are incapable of recognizing your own limited horizon and imagine the rest of us are as retarded as you
>and when we finally ferret out your faggotry >you might actually rejoin with a pathetic excuse for an argument >only to parrot some faggoty talking point of your favorite ideologue >>734333429 >>734333429 >>734333429
>>734321911 Free speech guarantees Kathy's right to depict Trumps head as art. It also guarantees everyone to call her out on it. Same deal that went down with Duck Dynasty. Were you defending them when they insulted gay people?
>>734333327 >Great going, cucks. nice misrepresentation of my point, retard. my point was always the same: both sides are hypocrites when it comes to freedom of speech because both sides have this 'one little issue' where they will deny you free speech, and it's often in their opinion "dangerous!" . this hypocrisy is the point, and both sides are guilty of it. as a matter of fact, most humans have it, including libertarians. instead of hypocritically crying about it, my contention is that we enjoy our freedom to say shit, and defend the right of others to say shit, and treat as enemies, those (FROM ALL SIDES AND IDEOLOGIES) who would limit our speech. . and if you are going to limit it for fear of harm (yelling fire in a theater), the limit should be something ALL sides agree on, as this limits the chance freedoms are limited by ideology... and that's a pretty high bar to limiting freedom of speech.
She certainly has the right to free speech but free speech in the Constitution never came with the promise of being with out reprecussions. Only that it would be legal under the law. She has a right to do this but we all have a right so speak against it. The problem is SJWs think they are the only ones with a right to free speech and get angry when people disagree with them.
ha ha ha! what a fantastic rebuttal to a logical statement, you sure showed the rest of us that your mental acuities are worthy of recognition. We must offer you an award for your incisive wit, your calculated reason, and your persuasive points... oh wait... you're so predictable ;)
>>734321911 This is wrong tho I am a conservative, and I am a free speech absolutist My only issue with the slag Griffin is that where it would be career-ending for a conservative to have done this shoot with Obama's head, she will be rehabilitated in 2 months and back hosting shows on major networks. Still, my beef is with the double standard, not with the speech itself. It's like how when Jason Schwartzman talked about Paul Ryan's wife's butthole. He stayed employed at a children's network. If anyone talked about Michelle Obama's shit-bespattered gaper, they'd be crucified.
>>734333429 >merely tossing around names doesn't an argument make. No one's claiming that. He never intended to make an argument. He just insulted you and you got triggered. Then your retort was a hilariously baseless accusation of him being eight. So, once more, tell me, how many eight year olds are calling you a cuck and why?
Whole thing dumb. 56 year old. Has-been "comedian" trying to be edgy. This is something a fucking cuck, liberal college student would do. Pathetic. Theeeen her "no make up" apology. Advised by one of her faggot advisers, so she can get gigs. Marilyn Mansons release is out next month. He's not apologizing for say10, and video.
>>734335767 >Still, my beef is with the double standard, not with the speech itself. It's like how when Jason Schwartzman talked about Paul Ryan's wife's butthole. He stayed employed at a children's network. If anyone talked about Michelle Obama's shit-bespattered gaper, they'd be crucified. yes, but this should be a point a conservative like you should be in agreement with: the freedom of a company to do whatever the fuck it wants without the government telling them what the fuck to do. freedom of speech is first and foremost a concept we argue for governments since they are the ones who cause the most damage when they limit our speech. extending such freedoms to private companies might seem good, but it's a can of worms that runs aground of many other liberties of individuals. if msnbc wants to fire don imus, I think it's shitty and I can vote with my (not) viewing them anymore. but to force a company to enforce freedom of speech because I say so runs greater risks of robbing you and me of freedoms we should enjoy.
>>734321911 >just watch how many trumptards will bend themselves into pretzels arguing how this is so terrible, ...the same Trumptards that applaud Trump's bombing of civilian targets in the middle east, even though they were against Obama doing the same thing.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.