ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, February 02, 2015

When speech is not speech

Vox Day ‏@voxday
#SJW logic: "They seem to believe that freedom of speech includes the freedom to say anything."  … Yes, it does.

Tanya Cohen ‏@xTanyaCohenx
No, it absolutely doesn't. International human rights law MANDATES legal sanctions on hate speech.

Space Bunny ‏@Spacebunnyday
Hate speech being whatever #SJW's find objectionable. Brilliant.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Of course it does. International human rights law is anti-free speech. No hate speech = no free speech.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Hate speech is free speech. There is no free speech without hate speech.

Tanya Cohen ‏@xTanyaCohenx
Hate speech is not free speech.

Tanya Cohen ‏@xTanyaCohenx
Hate speech is speech that violates fundamental human rights.

Space Bunny ‏@Spacebunnyday
There is no fundamental human right not to be offended or shocked, dear. Hate speech doesn't violate any rights.
I wonder if the Left truly understands that they have now opened a door to banning Black speech, or Jew speech, or Female speech, or any other form of speech that the majority wishes to silence. The Muslims have already learned how to utilize the concept to their advantage; they won't be the only ones. It's time to bring back the blasphemy laws.

Labels: ,

88 Comments:

Blogger Salt February 02, 2015 8:08 AM  

Hang out @Twitter and you'll see SJW hate speech in spades, except it's not hate speech because it's SJW speech. Violate SJW protocols and it's Room 101 for you.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 02, 2015 8:12 AM  

It started with the American university system.

Making censorship stick there was blood in the water.

Anonymous Rhys February 02, 2015 8:16 AM  

Hate speech is still speech. How dumb can this broad be?

Secondly, sovereign nations need to tell the UN to go fuck themselves more.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 02, 2015 8:17 AM  

Hate speech is speech that violates fundamental human rights.

Now try and get this little Eloi to define, a "right"

I'd say the result would prove instructive. But it wouldn't.

To anyone.

OpenID genericviews February 02, 2015 8:26 AM  

There is no fundamental human right not to be offended or shocked, dear

Uh OH! She caller her "dear". Shit's about to get real.

Blogger Shimshon February 02, 2015 8:27 AM  

If there were an entry for Hate Speech in the Oxford English Dictionary, and it had Vox's definition, and there was the Grand Poobah list of human rights listing hate speech as a violation of human rights, the SJW will choose the Grand Poobah source every time. It's why these allegedly peer-reviewed high-falutin journals accept made-up gibberish over and over. This worship of credentialism used to piss me off. It was a great relief when I realized that it was them, not me. Now I just laugh.

Anonymous Rhys February 02, 2015 8:35 AM  

This quote takes the cake:

Many have compared my proposals to Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. These people do not seem to understand that human rights policies exist to prevent something like what’s described in Orwell’s dystopian world from happening, as they prevent people from advocating totalitarianism and other human rights violations.

So in order to stop a dystopian society where free speech is banned we should ban free speech. My head hurts.

Also, I'm not sure she is so stupid to be actually trying to make the argument that without being able to call themselves totalitarians a totalitarian government couldn't come about? Its almost as if she has never even read the book.

Anonymous Neoreactive February 02, 2015 8:41 AM  

Its like a fucking robot.

"Ahh, cannot compute, sector 5, zone 3, this is a violation of fundamental human rights, target acquired, set range".

An old man in barber shop once put it best, to a young lady talking about human rights. He said "blow it out your arsehole sweetie".

Anonymous DrTorch February 02, 2015 8:47 AM  

I see Orwell was already referenced. And the SJWs are using doublethink to address it. *shrug*

The fool has said in his heart "there is no God." 2700 years later, secularists prove this is still true.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza February 02, 2015 8:48 AM  

It is truly a time when we cannot speak or type - anything! The SJW cult are so easily offended and touchy.

Anonymous Trimegistus February 02, 2015 8:48 AM  

The only solution is black knighting. Make use of speech codes to silence liberals. Make them feel the jackboot. Lord knows they provide plenty of material for complaints.

If nothing else, the sheer backlog would keep all the various thought police too busy to get anything done.

Anonymous Rhys February 02, 2015 8:53 AM  

Skimming through the comments I noticed this awesome comment by Gramsonfire:

1. Dignity is not a human right, it is a manner of self conduct.
2. Respect is not a right, but an attitude toward others; it is earned by the dignity with which one conducts himself and with which he treats others.
Unfortunately, the person who is listened to is the blathering idiot who feels that others are responsible for her conduct and is demanding unearned respect.


That is worthy of an alpha game post. Women do not understand the concept of respect. Respect is earned. Whenever a feminist blathers on about people deserve respect or you should respect everyone they are actually referring to common courtesy.
Dignity is also a sticky point for many women because dignity implies that you are judged on your behaviour and we know how that makes feminists screech

Blogger IM2L844 February 02, 2015 8:56 AM  

International law? Pffft. What gives it force, moral or otherwise, on individual citizens of sovereign nations? I'm sorry, Daisy, but I'm a loner and a loner's gotta be alone. Heeyah! The End.

Anonymous Roundtine February 02, 2015 8:59 AM  

Patrice O'Neal: This is my question, for life: have we retired the phrase, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"? Is it legal for me to say, "I endorse hate speech, I don't give a fuck"? I want hate speech. Why can't I hate you...in speech?

Anonymous Rhys February 02, 2015 9:03 AM  

@ Trimegistus The only solution is black knighting

It is not a solution - it is a tactic. A good tactic. Another good tactic is to mock and ridicule them. Laughter to them is like garlic to a vampire. Another tactic is to take their ideas to the absurd. Be triggered by everything. Act as if everything they say/do is obviously oppressive to some minority. Of course Poe's law is doing this for us.

Anonymous ThirdMonkey February 02, 2015 9:11 AM  

As a white-hispanic descendant of slaves, Mzz. Cohen's speech is offensive and oppresive.

Who's bitch is this?

Anonymous clk February 02, 2015 9:12 AM  

Its certainly not as cut and dry as it looks ...

1. Crowed theater --- cry out "fire" and see if you have free speech (although nowadays I think that is no longer illegal under Schenck vs US to do this .. although still stupid and likely to get you charged under some other law)
2. Go on TV and say something that your know is wrong about someone -- "slander"
3..Come within 25ft of Nate, in a location where he cannot reasonably retreat and say "I am going to shoot and kill you" and see how free your speech is "threatening and justified self defense "
4. Come here and seek to spread your free speech in a "trollish" manner ... banned, tracked down and reported to police.

So .. yes .. people can (and often do) say what ever they like but there are always consequences to that speech.. and in an age where good judgement and politeness is lacking ... maybe we do need some type of laws that cover this ... that's part of what laws do .. allow people to live together in some rudimentary type of civilized frame work.

Now I always had issue with "hate speech" -- because I am simply not sure what hate speech is. Just hurting someones feelings seems not to reach a level of hate speech, even when its based on race, gender religion etc ... (or else Don Rickles would have been executed 50 years ago). . For me, it has to threatening to be hate speech... and even that is a slippery slope.

Its a balancing of society vs individual rights. There are subjects which people are going to disagree..and people absolutely have the right to their own beliefs and to express those beliefs ...but in today's world disagreements can be vitriolic...

My personal opinion is don't say things to other people that you wouldn't want them to say to you... its one of those kindergarten and golden rules deals.

Anonymous clk February 02, 2015 9:15 AM  

"Who's bitch is this?" -

Maybe another rule is don't use terms to describe other people that you wouldn't want used on your mother, wife or daughter...

Anonymous Ryan ATL February 02, 2015 9:20 AM  

Does SB say "dear" as much in real life as she does on Twitter? someone needs to ban her from saying that so much if not

Anonymous Doug Wardell February 02, 2015 9:20 AM  

I wonder if the Left truly understands that they have now opened a door to banning Black speech, or Jew speech, or Female speech, or any other form of speech that the majority wishes to silence.

I have trouble believing they can't see it. I suspect they simply think their side will always have control and, since they are the good guys, it's not a concern. After all, everyone knows the Nazi's were right-wingers, right?

Anonymous Will Best February 02, 2015 9:24 AM  

This makes perfect sense. Remember the Left isn't content with letting "hate speech" go. If they hear something they don't like they have to engage in hardcore hecklers veto. And do things like throw shoes at speakers they don't like, Protest their homes and scare the crap out of their children, and other things that are really time consuming.

It would be easier to just outlaw such speech so they aren't forced to act in such uncivilized manners.

Anonymous joe doakes February 02, 2015 9:28 AM  

If the theatre actually IS on fire and you're a firefighter, you can and should yell "FIRE" as you have a moral duty - if not a legal duty - to save lives by warning patrons of the danger. That's a bad example to use to explain why prior restraints on speech or retaliatory shunning are good for society.

Blogger Josh February 02, 2015 9:29 AM  

Who's bitch is this?

Now now, the correct syntax is "Whose bitch this is?"

Anonymous Rolf February 02, 2015 9:32 AM  

Double-think, and a very selective positive-rights view of the idea of "rights," which they should always use with air-quotes.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey February 02, 2015 9:33 AM  

I don't think mere laws are going to shut these creatures up.

I'm not surprised someone with the handle "Cohen" is against free speech.

Yids gonna yid.

Anonymous clk February 02, 2015 9:42 AM  

"If the theatre actually IS on fire and you're a firefighter, you can and should yell "FIRE" as you have a moral duty - if not a legal duty - to save lives by warning patrons of the danger. That's a bad example to use to explain why prior restraints on speech or retaliatory shunning are good for society."

Its a bad example all the way around as appears that its no longer considered illegal to do this strictly under the laws it once was believed to be... but I am sure, despite you feign to the contrary you get the point clearly.

Blogger JP February 02, 2015 9:46 AM  

The UN "fundamental human rights" doesn't exclude hate speech:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Anonymous Stilicho February 02, 2015 9:47 AM  

International human rights law MANDATES legal sanctions on hate speech.

"International human rights law" is hate speech. What, then, would be the proper sanction? I suspect it weighs less than a duck...

Anonymous PA February 02, 2015 9:50 AM  

Guys, no. Don't you pay attention? The correct construction is "Who bitch this is?"

Anonymous Stilicho February 02, 2015 9:51 AM  

This makes perfect sense. Remember the Left isn't content with letting "hate speech" go. If they hear something they don't like they have to engage in hardcore hecklers veto...

Indeed. Mrs. Grundy taught them well:


Maybe another rule is don't use terms to describe other people that you wouldn't want used on your mother, wife or daughter...

Blogger Josh February 02, 2015 9:53 AM  

Guys, no. Don't you pay attention? The correct construction is "Who bitch this is?"

You are correct, my good sir.

/tips hat

Blogger bob k. mando February 02, 2015 9:53 AM  

Ryan ATL February 02, 2015 9:20 AM
Does SB say "dear" as much in real life as she does on Twitter? someone needs to ban her from saying that so much if not



she used to say that all the time, here.



Tanya Cohen ‏@xTanyaCohenx
No, it absolutely doesn't. International human rights law MANDATES legal sanctions on hate speech.



too which, the proper response is;
International Law ( which has never been put to a 'democratic vote' ) violates the US Constitution.

therefore, no American citizen is bound by it.

and it's true that even here, there are limits on speech ( libel, incitement to violence, etc ).

the difference is that there are no limits on POLITICAL speech.

the coup of the left is to characterize political / religious speech as 'hate'.

Anonymous Rhys February 02, 2015 9:54 AM  

Related. This has to be the biggest bitch slap of a SJW ever:

http://i.imgur.com/kbW3TCq.png

Anonymous Jeigh Di February 02, 2015 10:06 AM  

“It is only because of their stupidity that they are able to be so sure of themselves.”
― Franz Kafka

Anonymous p-dawg February 02, 2015 10:09 AM  

Since when is it wrong to hate? Is there a logical argument that hatred is inherently bad? Or is it just feelings? I mean, if it weren't for hate, many of the world's most important advancements and occurrences would never have happened. Let's stop hating hate, everyone. Stop the hate. Of hate.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 02, 2015 10:15 AM  

The same people who are for hate speech codes gloat about "the browning of America" and similar victories. They know they don't have to keep us silent for ever, just long enough to bury us.

When you commit to wiping our a race, which is what the Tanya Cohens of this world have done, the rest of your decision-making becomes simple.

Blogger James Higham February 02, 2015 10:18 AM  

Actually, how is Space Bunny these days?

Anonymous The other skeptic February 02, 2015 10:19 AM  

This seems like free speech:

The Delusion of the Twentieth Century

The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes: And Other Writings on the Holocaust, Revisionism, and Historical Understanding by Samuel Crowell, Nine Banded Books, Charleston, W. Va., 2011. 401pp. Indexed.

Anonymous ThirdMonkey February 02, 2015 10:27 AM  

I stand gramatically corrected. I must refrain from posting prior to my first cup of coffee.

clk, you obviously have not met my mother. I have called her out on her bitchiness towards my father on occassion, and she refrains from being a bitch when I do so. My wife and daughter have observed this, and it seems to prevent the type of behavior that goes with the "bitch" label. I have never called my wife or daughter a bitch, because they are in fact not bitches. Mzzzzz. Cohen, however is one. If your wife/mother/daughter is a bitch, I would reccommend calling her one. You'll feel better, and she might act better.

Quite frankly, dear, I don't give a good fart about your silly rule.

Blogger IM2L844 February 02, 2015 10:30 AM  

There is a certain clarifying utility in provocative and divisive speech and the responses to it, but with individual natural rights there also comes individual natural responsibilities. One of the responsibilities is to try and mitigate potential negative consequences to yourself from the free exercise of your natural rights. Nothing is free, but apportionment of some of those consequences should only come from the original Creator of those natural rights (God not governments).

Blogger Corvinus February 02, 2015 10:32 AM  

Guys, no. Don't you pay attention? The correct construction is "Who bitch this is?"

@PA
That's the label, but I'm pretty sure he was actually saying "Who bitch is dis?"

Blogger Krul February 02, 2015 10:46 AM  

Tanya Cohen - I sent my article to many people in Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and various other places all over the world. The reaction that I got was universally positive. Only American audiences had such a hostile reaction to my column...

It's odd how the progressive who live in the US tend to idealize other countries, to the point where they seem to genuinely think "That's how they do it in Europe/Canada/Cuba/etc" is an unassailable argument.

Blogger Josh February 02, 2015 10:50 AM  

It's odd how the progressive who live in the US tend to idealize other countries, to the point where they seem to genuinely think "That's how they do it in Europe/Canada/Cuba/etc" is an unassailable argument.

I wonder how much of that is from their one semester abroad in college.

Younger friend of mine is a leftist of the anarcho syndicate type, once emailed me from his semester in Germany, stating, "socialism looks pretty good over here."

Anonymous Giuseppe February 02, 2015 10:53 AM  

Krul,
In Europe we tend to generally try to ignore the stupid until it clearly becomes absolutely necessary to curb stomp it. Talking back to it is usually done as entertainment at most.

Anonymous dh February 02, 2015 10:54 AM  

Well her logic is pretty much bulletproof. If you ban advocating for bad things to happen, bad things won't happen. It stands to reason.

Anonymous H2 February 02, 2015 10:58 AM  

Somewhat OT but still related to opening the door for speech codes is when leftists say that the U.S. Constitution needs to be updated for the times. It's almost always about how the founding fathers didn't think of semi-automatic or automatic rifles and pistols when writing the 2nd Amendment. The founding fathers probably didn't think we'd invite millions of Muslims into the country either, so we need to update the 1st Amendment and ban Islam.

Anonymous dh February 02, 2015 10:59 AM  

Bob K

"and it's true that even here, there are limits on speech ( libel, incitement to violence, etc )."

And even then, it's not prior restraint. That's the essence of the international order, which is, you must exercise prior restraint on unfavorable speech.

Prior restraint is very rare in US law and custom. It is as far as I can see never applied broadly, it is only applied individually, and I think mostly by the Courts, not by the Legislature or Executive branches.

It's actually one of the only bright spots in US constitutional law in practice.

It's really easy to see the practical effect of all this garbage on society. In the UK, you get four decades of pedophilia and sexual abuse by Parliament, and now it seems by the Royal Family as well, and it's all swept up under the rug because of prior restraint. No one will print it, because if they tried to, the Government would get it blocked. Then, because of the governments power to censor, the organization or person who tried to publish it would be held accountable. And of course, since the government is the state owner of a huge slice of the media that people consume, it has a megaphone to shout it down, counteract it, or simply ignore it.

Anonymous Stilicho February 02, 2015 11:01 AM  


Younger friend of mine is a leftist of the anarcho syndicate type, once emailed me from his semester in Germany, stating, "socialism looks pretty good over here."


To which the proper response is "stay".

Anonymous Viidad February 02, 2015 11:04 AM  

Totalitarianism to stop totalitarianism.

Like Bush bailing out the banks to save the free market.

Kris Kross. Every day is backwards day.

Anonymous cutty sarc February 02, 2015 11:05 AM  

you know I just love the genius that brought us the Talmud being applied to our laws.

Blogger bob k. mando February 02, 2015 11:16 AM  

dh February 02, 2015 10:59 AM
And even then, it's not prior restraint.



that's a very good point.

and that's also one of the defining characteristics of the feminazis;
they demand the 'right' of prior restraint on you all the time.

Blogger Josh February 02, 2015 11:25 AM  

you know I just love the genius that brought us the Talmud being applied to our laws.

Hey dumbass, you do realize that one of the philosophical foundations for our constitution was the Torah, right?

Anonymous RandyBeck February 02, 2015 11:26 AM  

The SF community is on board for free speech:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorifying_Terrorism

(Okay, I'm being a bit flippant.)

Blogger Vox February 02, 2015 11:34 AM  

Hey dumbass, you do realize that one of the philosophical foundations for our constitution was the Torah, right?

The Talmud is not the Torah, Josh. Nor is the inspiration behind one the same as the other. Don't be ignorant. Or worse, disingenuous.

Blogger Josh February 02, 2015 11:44 AM  

The Talmud is not the Torah, Josh. Nor is the inspiration behind one the same as the other. Don't be ignorant. Or worse, disingenuous.

Okay, that wasn't the best way for me to respond.

My point was simply that our legal system was influenced by Jewish thought and writings from its beginning.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 02, 2015 11:47 AM  

Leftists dividing by zero again.

Anonymous Red Comet February 02, 2015 11:51 AM  

It's been my experience that non-American (mostly European) leftists are a lot more behind hate speech laws and the like than American leftists, although perhaps not American female leftists.

Guess that has to do with "defend your right to say it" being held up as a virtue throughout most peoples' formative years.

Regardless, arguing with these types is a complete waste of time. Remember that you're dealing with people who simultaneously believe white American culture does not exist yet somehow also grants "white privilege" for those part of white American culture.

Blogger CarpeOro February 02, 2015 11:51 AM  

""Who's bitch is this?" -

Maybe another rule is don't use terms to describe other people that you wouldn't want used on your mother, wife or daughter.."

If the conduct merits it I'd say that it is called for. Perhaps you need to review the source of the phrase, considering that it is actually a relatively mild call for the person who is responsible for the woman in question to administer some remedial education regarding correct interaction between the genders. Of course this is just a patriarchal take on it. The modern truly equalist (equal outcome regardless of race, gender, or creed) take would have been to simply lay them out with a punch.

Anonymous hygate February 02, 2015 11:54 AM  

"Hate speech isn't free speech" is a bullshit slogan. She is just trying to elide over the fact that she doesn't think that what she calls hate speech should be allowed but she doesn't want to debate why it shouldn't be allowed, she just presents it as a given.

In the cases that opponents of free speech like to site, such as slander and "shouting fire" the limits imposed are specific and neccesary to prevent actual harm. What they are seeking is an unlimited right to stifle speech they disagree with on the specious grounds that it is offensive. Well I find a great deal of speech offensive. But for some reason I don't think it will be the speech I find offensive that will be banned.

Oh, if you are in a crowded theater and see that it is on fire, you are perfectly free to yell fire. At the very least you should pull the fire alarm.

Anonymous Curtis February 02, 2015 11:56 AM  

What she really means: Remember where we where? Here we are. Imagine where we will be. Your children belong to us already.

Anonymous cutty sarc February 02, 2015 12:00 PM  

hey dumbass, you do realize that they are going to have same traits and characteristics, the same tics when arguing about the constitution as they do when arguing about the torah, only they have a hell of lot more respect for the torah. just look at that bit of pilpul they took to the first amendment if you would like an example.

Blogger Mark February 02, 2015 12:03 PM  

So no one has noticed that Tanya Cohen doesn't exist? Her articles have to be fake/parody/satire. She had no online presence before January. Troll troll trolly troll.

Blogger Josh February 02, 2015 12:39 PM  

hey dumbass, you do realize that they are going to have same traits and characteristics, the same tics when arguing about the constitution as they do when arguing about the torah, only they have a hell of lot more respect for the torah. just look at that bit of pilpul they took to the first amendment if you would like an example.

Are you terrified that Jews might decide to become lawyers?

Anonymous clk February 02, 2015 12:40 PM  

Thridmonkey says "clk, you obviously have not met my mother. .... If your wife/mother/daughter is a bitch, I would reccommend calling her one. You'll feel better, and she might act better."

I am not your confessor, your judge or father ... I am sure you completely understand what I meant even if you choose to be obtuse about it. I were to call YOUR wife or daughter a bitch in your presence ... I would expect you to punch me in my mouth. Fair enough ?

Don't touch another mans wife, his tools, his truck, his dog or his guns. Treat others how you want to treated. Don't write something to me here something that you wouldn't say face to face. .. it all has the makings of a good country song... :) .. I picking my guitar right now.


Anonymous Boogeyman February 02, 2015 12:53 PM  

Eric Cartman, ultimate black knight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urwnrnHexmM

Anonymous Harold February 02, 2015 12:57 PM  

Um, guys, many of you are making a grammatical error. The correct English grammar is "hateful speech", not "hate speech". While I am at it, another grammatical error I see often is "people if colour", it makes no sense in English to say "of colour" here, it should be "coloured people". You're welcome.

The construction "hate speech" serves to reify the concept and implant in the mind the notion it has a more objective and concrete meaning than it does.

Anonymous cutty sarc February 02, 2015 12:59 PM  

um no josh, nothing fills me with more confidence that are laws, constitution and way of life will be upheld than our finest barrister ruth bader ginsburg.

Anonymous An Israeli February 02, 2015 1:03 PM  

Wow, this woman wishes to outlaw virtually every opinion other than her own. Quite dangerous.

Anonymous Angry February 02, 2015 1:04 PM  

It is obvious that Leftists must one day be dealt with militarily. Thank goodness the Leftists are establishing the machinery of the State that will prove to efficiently and easily deal with them.

It's like fascism all over again. The Communists, socialists and Bolsheviks all increase the power of the government so much that totalitarian government becomes inevitable. Then, when the Leftist policies fail, the fascists can come in and clean them up with the same totalitarian machinery that they so helpfully and generously established.

It's a win-win situation.

Anonymous dh February 02, 2015 1:08 PM  

Angry--

I am fairly sure we can deal with the majority of leftists by unleashing the dog of war known as Tom Kratman. If you kick him a few times, and unmuzzle him, it will be pretty much over for all but a few Vermonters who won't cause much trouble anyways.

Blogger Josh February 02, 2015 1:09 PM  

It's a win-win situation.

No.

Also, fascists are leftists.

Anonymous cuttysark February 02, 2015 1:12 PM  

it also fills me with joy that adleson will pick our republican and soros our democrat presidential canidates. that sulzberger will set the tone of our newspapers, ben bernake will run our banks, larry summers will pick the head of the treasury department, the rosenbergs and aldritch ames have guarded our secrets and that their are joshes in this world to protect the weak.

Blogger Josh February 02, 2015 1:13 PM  

for all but a few Vermonters who won't cause much trouble anyways.

Sure they won't...

Anonymous Alexander February 02, 2015 2:05 PM  

Guys, it's actually very simple.

Anything that causes tharn must be abolished. So speaketh the rabbits.

It's a fundamental lagomorph right to live a life free of tharn.

Anonymous WaterBoy February 02, 2015 2:22 PM  

From the original article:

"Speech that offends, insults, demeans, threatens, disrespects, incites hatred or violence, and/or violates basic human rights and freedoms has absolutely no place in even the freest society. In fact, it has no place in any free society, as bigotry is fundamentally anti-freedom by its very nature."

Good Heavens! She means to shutdown Facebook, Twitter, and most of the blogosphere entirely! Wherever will all those teenage girls go to gossip about each other, now?

Such a long list of Hate, too:

#BanAntiGamerGate
#BanJezebel
#BanDailyKos
.
.
.

Blogger TheCitadel February 02, 2015 2:41 PM  

Anyone else find it ironic that after the 'free speech' rally, they prosecuted over 50 people for hate speech in a crackdown. You cant make this up!

Anonymous dh February 02, 2015 2:45 PM  

Sure they won't...

You know what's weird? I have never met an uplander anywhere but Vermont. You'll have to take out Burlington, but otherwise, they will be content to live the way they have for a long-time.

It's one of those weird things where they are socialist, but also, have more freedom than even Texans on things that are very important. A good example is guns. They've been telling Bloomberg to screw for decades.

Anonymous Anubis February 02, 2015 2:54 PM  

Younger friend of mine is a leftist of the anarcho syndicate type, once emailed me from his semester in Germany, stating, "socialism looks pretty good over here."

The proper response is that Patton decided the same thing about fighting the wrong people a week before he was killed.

“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” – Henry Louis Mencken
“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” – Plato

Anonymous Anonymous February 02, 2015 3:52 PM  

I don't think this article is satire but I don't think she's serious either. If I had to guess I'd say that the author, whoever it is (Cohen?), is purposely trying to inflame the goyim in furtherance of trying to get their precious "antisemitism" bills passed into law.

Blogger automatthew February 02, 2015 6:10 PM  

"My point was simply that our legal system was influenced by Jewish thought and writings from its beginning."

Moses wasn't a Jew, Josh. Do you know which tribe he was from?

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein February 02, 2015 7:48 PM  

Don't touch another mans wife, his tools, his truck, his dog or his guns. Treat others how you want to treated. Don't write something to me here something that you wouldn't say face to face. .. it all has the makings of a good country song... :) .. I picking my guitar right now.

You didn't say anything about Mama...or trains...or trucks [actually, you did] ...or prison...or gettin' drunk...

Anonymous Jack Amok February 02, 2015 9:47 PM  

It's been my experience that non-American (mostly European) leftists are a lot more behind hate speech laws and the like than American leftists, although perhaps not American female leftists.

Guess that has to do with "defend your right to say it" being held up as a virtue throughout most peoples' formative years.


Well, I think it's more because European leftists never really had to be sold the "fight a noble cause for others" lie that American leftists swallowed. EruoLefties were pretty much from the begining out to get more for themselves, so they're more accustomed to the "who-whom" power-play line of thinking.

Blogger James Dixon February 02, 2015 10:19 PM  

> You didn't say anything about Mama...or trains...or trucks [actually, you did] ...or prison...or gettin' drunk...

Or tractors, the dog dying, losing the farm, his wife cheating, etc.
The song actually left out quite a few Country tropes. It's still good though.

Anonymous Shut Up,Josh February 03, 2015 12:09 AM  

"Also, fascists are leftists."

If anything, fascism is more far right than far left due to its social conservatism and direct opposition to egalitarianism.

On the other hand, fascism is simply another term--like "Cultural Marxism"--are merely used for political gain by righties, similar to when leftists cry "sexism", "racism", and "rape" for their own demented purposes. These buzzwords are devoid of any legitimate meaning anymore in part because conservatives and liberals subjectively define them and neatly package them to the masses for consumption.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 03, 2015 12:49 AM  

Is this another example of Free Speech?

GOP presidential nomination appeared to question whether child vaccinations should be mandatory — injecting politics into an emotional issue that has taken on new resonance with a recent outbreak of measles in the United States.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 03, 2015 12:56 AM  

It seems that Liberal Prius-driving people are the new bad people with respect to Vaccines.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 03, 2015 1:38 AM  

cuttysark: "it also fills me with joy that adleson will pick our republican and soros our democrat presidential canidates. that sulzberger will set the tone of our newspapers, ben bernake will run our banks, larry summers will pick the head of the treasury department, the rosenbergs and aldritch ames have guarded our secrets and that their are joshes in this world to protect the weak."

Haim Saban's great contribution should also be recognized.

But I sympathize with anyone trying to make a list. It gets too long to manage, quickly.

Anonymous Luke February 03, 2015 3:08 PM  

Josh February 02, 2015 10:50 AM

"Younger friend of mine is a leftist of the anarcho syndicate type, once emailed me from his semester in Germany, stating, "socialism looks pretty good over here.""

Should've responded with something like "The national kind, right? That's the main kind they do, though they're seriously into the international (or, more than national) kind, too."

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts