Other Freedom of Speech and So Called “Hate Speech”

Oneirois said:

Overall what I've drawn from this is that a lot of people do not think that people like Milo or the Neo-Nazis should have free speech. I personally believe that everyone no matter your political views, right, left, fascist or communist should be given the right to free speech. For me the freedom of speech is as integral as the right to live and it will be a truly sad day when it is taken away.

Perhaps I may be bias, as someone who is a staunch believer in the first and second amendment, but I think in order for democracy to function we need free speech for everyone even if it is hate speech.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you here. I might be biased as well, but I’m also a staunch supporter of the first two amendments, or really all of them. I’m a constitutionalist in that sense. Though I really do try to understand the opposing point of view and why they feel that way. This has led to disagreements with friends. But yesterday, someone I was friends with accused me of being a racist, or really an indirect racist because I don’t hold racial views, but supporting America right now apparently made me support 300 years of slavery or oppression (something like that).

Peacemaker .45 said:

The only issue with this is that many of the assaults taken place during rallies are unreported. For example, during what the internet calls “The Battle of Berkeley,” or more formally known as the 2017 Berkeley Protests, the police were told to back off, and all out brawls ensued. And this, as with the far right militants, is where most crimes take place, but no arrests take place. Because of this, crime statistics are all but impossible to find. To see the violence on other sides, you need to watch videos of it. Tim Pool, the most center of the line person and a recognized independent journalist, was there, as was he with many of these violent riots. Helicopter footage shows AntiFa grabbing rightists, shoving them into the back of crowd, and hanging up on them and beating them down.

This isn’t as simple as doing an FBI crime search. You have to watch a lot of livestream coverage to see this stuff. Perhaps finding documented specific incidences of a single event that were reported of AntiFa abusing someone. AntiFa, most often, commits violence during events. And these numbers aren’t specific because most are never reported individually.

Click to expand...

This is all very right and proper.

So given this, it is improper to make a claim that "Antifa has commited more violence than Nazi's"

Since, well, we don't actually know that.

Elizabeth Cooper said:

This is all very right and proper.

So given this, it is improper to make a claim that "Antifa has commited more violence than Nazi's"

Since, well, we don't actually know that.

Click to expand...

With the observations of the rallies, and reporting of credible sources like Tim Pool, I can say that yes, they are more violent. I can’t guve specific numbers because I don’t know the specific ones.

But my observations, and again, credible reporting of people there, I don’t find it to be an improper claim, based on the evidence I’ve seen for over a year.

If you really want to see for yourself who is more violent, you have to watch live streams of the events they all gather at. Charlottesville is the only place where a far right individual committed a heavily reported crime that resulted in a death. Ironically, I was watching a livestream and saw that happen. That being said, typical “far right” places, like 4Chan’s /pol/ board, were actively trying to find the guy and his identity. They’re typically the ones who are called the Alt-Right.

I simply believe that all speech is free as long as no one is sustaining heavy emotional or any physical damage.

Freedom of speech is one of the tenements that begin the separation of social and status castes. By regulating or banning certain speech as "hateful" or protecting certain groups from ridicule is akin to once mote creating those special classes.

Consider this: either we are all free game, or none of us are.

If the speech doesn't directly incite violence against a group, it's protected speech. No matter how you feel about the speech, this should be pretty cut and dry. I should be able to say Asians are whatever without the risk of going to jail.

That doesn't, however, entitle me to immunity of criticism or non-lawbreaking consequences, such as being fired or banned on Twitter

Twitter banning Milo is a small form of censorship, not a breach of free speech. A breach of free speech would entail him being arrested or charged like this whole thing with the UK. Arresting people for what they say on Twitter is a blatant violation of free speech. There's NO working around or downplaying that. This is not the case of Twitter banning people though. Most have no place for things like racism, and I absolutely hate the fact that this free speech debate centers on people who say the most questionable things or are the biggest of assholes. Firing someone for saying racist shit is not breaching free speech (not saying that Milo says racist shit). The protest and their resulting dismissing Milo isn't a breach of free speech. All he did was lose that particular platform. He is still allowed to speak on a different platform. If I get banned on Twitter, I can just move to another website. If I get fined for it, that's a violation of free speech

Then we get into the whole Nazi thing and just ugh........Milo was called a Nazi. A gay black man dating jew called a Nazi. Every president for a while has been called "literally hitler" their supporters nazis or facists. It's such an intellectually lazy argument. Couple that with sentiments like "punch a nazi" and you have a clear picture of what attacks on free speech do. This has led to the lines being blurred between censorship and free speech violation. If you don't like what they have to say, violence is a viable option because they're a Nazi. Trump supporters have been getting beaten up just for wearing a hat, all because they believe that trump supporters are racist, homphobic, blah de blah. All the critical thinking is taken out because Trump said some stupid stuff, and by supporting him, you must think like him, thus you are too. This sentiment has extended to Youtube, thus its Ad-pocalypse. It's extended to Facebook and Twitter, thus the Twitter purge

Nazi has gone into the buzzword pile along with things like homophobe, misogynist, facist, hitler, racist, etc. A far too widely used pile of insults whose overuse has desensitized the world to its actual meaning and power in society. Me disagreeing with you doesn't make me a misogynist. Me believing that women are inferior to men or that women shouldn't have the same rights as men is misogyny

The cake ordeal. An easy question. Yes it's discrimination. Refusing service simply because someone is gay is discrimination. There's NO work around to that. Any business that engages in that, private or public, doesn't need to be left standing. On the flip side, the Milo case wasn't him being banned due to being gay or a jew. It was because he broke the rules of Twitter. Granted, this was just Twitter looking for any petty reason to ban him, and we all see it for what it really is, but he still broke the rules


I can see both sides. The ones who defend free speech the most always have the craziest shit to say, or they're too big of assholes. I'm all for not giving a fuck about people's feelings, but I'm NOT for going out of your way to be a dick. It's like the whole transgender thing. Ok, if the only thing about them that suggests that they were born the opposite gender is their genitals, which you CANT SEE, it's a huge reasonless dick move to go about calling them by opposite gender pronouns, or saying things like "he she" or "it". Your natural instinct is to assume that looks equal gender. If they look like a woman, over 95% of the time with over 7 billion people, you'd be right to assume that they're a woman. It's a fairly safe assumption to make..... So not calling them the gender that they go out of their way to look like, surgeries, sometimes giving up reproductive capabilities, etc. is a purposeful you being a dick. It's not like it's easier to say "he she" or "shemale" than simply "she"
Still though, to fine people for misgendering a trans person is a breach of free speech. I agree that that person needs to grow some thicker skin, but that doesn't mean I defend you misgendering them on purpose. Live and let live

Facts over feelings, but don't be a dick. If you do be a dick, don't call adverse social consequences a breach of free speech
Fining people for what they say, unless it incites violence against someone, is a breach of free speech and has no place in a free country. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." This is amplified 1,000x if the safety in question is just your little hurt feelings.

Kylesar1 said:

The ones who defend free speech the most always have the craziest shit to say, or they're too big of assholes.

Click to expand...

I believe I was civil and I do not think that any of my points were too outlandish. Now of course there will be things that will be viewed as rude by some people, but it the nature of debate for this to happen. Overall I respect those I talked to and I am curious if you think I am an "asshole" or if any of my points were crazy.

Oneirois said:

I believe I was civil and I do not think that any of my points were too outlandish. Now of course there will be things that will be viewed as rude by some people, but it the nature of debate for this to happen. Overall I respect those I talked to and I am curious if you think I am an "asshole" or if any of my points were crazy.

Click to expand...

So you pick a few words from that entire post and comment on that alone.
If this were personal, I would've tagged you and talked about you the whole post. Speaking in a general sense about the bigger names like Milo who actually have an audience.

Kylesar1 said:

If this were personal, I would've tagged you. Speaking in a general sense about the bigger names like Milo who actually have an audience.

Click to expand...

Thanks for responding, I was confused when you said ALL people who defend free speech are those things.

I don't think speech that is hateful (eg., white nationalism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia) is productive to our country (USA) and in some way, shape or form contributes harmfully to out society. While our laws do allow it to "exist" I like the way Germany handles it by forbidding Nazi Sympathizers to publically express their nazi beliefs.

Oneirois said:

Thanks for responding, I was confused when you said ALL people who defend free speech are those things.

Click to expand...

It's people like Milo who is an asshole yet calls getting banned on Twitter a breach of free speech. I probably should've quantified my wording better. I've been in one too many arguments with both sides of the equation, so I just get ready for an internet argument because it usually just comes.

Anyways, I love Milo, but he has to know the risks. There's also the general asshole who constantly talks about hurt feelings and not caring, then goes mad when people like Milo get banned. They all know the risks. You can't say Equal Opportunity (EO) questionable stuff and expect to keep your job. It's the defend free speech by any means necessary crowd that sides with someone who gets fired for saying EO shit or banned. Your big rewards come with big risk.

In my experience, that crowd is mostly the kekistan, skeptic, shitposting community that makes up anti-feminists and anti-SJWs. The very fact that it sounds like I'm siding with the feminists and SJWs is telling.

Superior Iron Man said:

I don't think speech that is hateful (eg., white nationalism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia) is productive to our country (USA) and in some way, shape or form contributes harmfully to out society. While our laws do allow it to "exist" I like the way Germany handles it by forbidding Nazi Sympathizers to publically express their nazi beliefs.

Click to expand...

If it's forbidden under the law, I personally call it a breach of Free Speech. If someone wants to shout out that black people need to be sent back to Africa, I say let them. There's no need to arrest or fine them, because their life is screwed once the video gets put on the internet. They may even get their ass beaten, which I don't condone, but I don't sympathize with them

Germany may be a moral grey area though, given the history of Nazism. I can understand them not wanting to be associated with all of that. Germany is still fighting down the Nazi stereotype to this day............... people who now have had to do with that

The only speech that shouldn't be allowed are direct threats of physical violence. End of story. Everything else should be up for grabs, no matter how much other people don't like it, or how much it hurts their precious little feelings.

I actually used to lean more to the left as recently as several months ago, but I discovered Milo Yiannopoulos not too long ago, and watching videos of his speeches and reading his book Dangerous made me realize how powerful the left has become and how they're silencing opinions they don't like by deeming them as "hate speech" and "politically incorrect." Basically, discovering him saved me from dangerous leftist ideologies, and I'm glad to consider myself much more conservative now than I used to be, and a staunch defender of free speech, no matter how much I don't like or disagree with some things people will say as a result.

Superior Iron Man said:

I don't think speech that is hateful (eg., white nationalism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia) is productive to our country (USA) and in some way, shape or form contributes harmfully to out society. While our laws do allow it to "exist" I like the way Germany handles it by forbidding Nazi Sympathizers to publically express their nazi beliefs.

Click to expand...

I don't like Nazis any more than you do, but preventing them from publicly expressing their beliefs is absolutely a violation of free speech. I could see it being a similar situation to the argument liberals make that it's okay to punch Nazis, which almost sounds okay, only to then call everyone that disagrees with them a Nazi. Either everyone has free speech or no one has it.

AsrielGoatChild said:

I actually used to lean more to the left as recently as several months ago, but I discovered Milo Yiannopoulos not too long ago, and watching videos of his speeches and reading his book Dangerous made me realize how powerful the left has become and how they're silencing opinions they don't like by deeming them as "hate speech" and "politically incorrect." Basically, discovering him saved me from dangerous leftist ideologies, and I'm glad to consider myself much more conservative now than I used to be, and a staunch defender of free speech, no matter how much I don't like it or disagree with it.

Click to expand...

I can relate.

Twitter banning Milo is him facing consequences for violating the terms and condition of Twitter. Claiming that Twitter banning Milo is the same as a bakery denying a gay couple service is completely dishonest, since there is no similarity at all. Him not being allowed to speak somewhere is because the owner of the platform doesn't want his Nazi ass there and doesn't have to. He's got nothing of value to say and is actively harmful, so it makes sense not to want him or the people he attracts at your platform. For someone who claims to hate 'identity politics,' that's all he ever brings up. Whenever someone points out he's spewing Nazi propaganda he pulls up his false claim to be a 'Jewish gay guy with a black boyfriend' to try to shield himself. He's not Jewish (he's Catholic), it really doesn't matter who he's having sex with, and I've already linked the article that points out that he knows he's a Nazi. At this point there is no defense for his defenders, it's just denialism. This really isn't that hard to find out, but Milo's targeted audience are self-selected for willful ignorance.

AntiFa isn't randomly attacking people, that's a falsehood. The right-wing is the biggest threat.

People should learn what free speech is and isn't before commenting on it. Of course the people shouting about it the most tend to be ignorant of its actual meaning and hypocrites.

I've cited all my claims. Godwin is on my side.

stainsoftime said:

AntiFa isn't randomly attacking people, that's a falsehood.

Click to expand...

Oh really? Let’s take a look at AntiFa attacking people randomly.

This guy was totally a Nazi who deserved to be assaulted.

This Hispanic minority father and son definitely were deserving of a smack down for being racist, Nazi punks.

This man deserved to be assaulted out of nowhere because he wore the shitpost Kekistani flag, what a Nazi!

Or how these Nazi Trump supporters deserved fireworks, like M80’s thrown at them in Berkeley.

And this property damage is justified because Trump got inaugurated because he’s lItErAlLy HiTlEr.

Berkeley deserved this property damage because Milo is a Nazi somehow when he is a gay Jew married to a black man.

So much for standing up for the marginalized people they pretend to protect. This Naziblack guy deserved to be punched, apparently.

MAN look at this elderly woman holding an American flag. She’s a Nazi who deserves to have her flag taken and dragged by the angels of AntiFa, here to protect us from fascists like her.

A girl wearing a “Make Bitcoin Great Again” hat gets pepper sprayed by AntiFa as she clearly is a Nazi fascist.

This guy is ONE hell of a Nazi for holding a sign that says “the right to openly discuss ideas must be defended.” What a nAzI!

This Nazi fascist Trump supporter is putting out a fire, so he deserves to be assaulted, have his hat stolen, and the guy trying to get back his stolen hat assaulted too!

More protecting those who they say are marginalized!

Doing nothing constitutes as assaulting people! So much for them not being violent or starting it!

CNN even made a good piece explaining their violence.

Some more of their unprovoked violence.

The FBI is investigating people in the AntiFa ideology.

FBI and DHS also warning if their violent manners

New Jersey Department Of Homeland Security officially classifies them as a domestic terrorist group.

With the rise of both radical authoritarian violent movements on both the Left and Right, neither of them are in the morally correct ground. Using violence because of political disagreements isn’t the way forward. AntiFa isn’t the way. Communism/socialism isn’t the way. White nationalism isn’t the way. White supremacy isn’t the way. Fascism isn’t the way. The so called “anti-fascists” use fascist tactics to suppress opposition, more often than not violently.

Neither of these sides are right. The far authoritarian left and right are far from right. But to claim that AntiFa isn’t violent is an utter fallacy on its own. Political violence is never okay. Ever. We should be attempting to not be violent politically. Because political violence is terrorism. The radical authoritarian Left is violent. The radical authoritarian Right can also be violent. But neither or right. No one should support either side. But to be ignorant of the fact that AntiFa is violent, nor do they incite it, often unprovoked in the name of social justice, or a “revolution,” is doing yourself and others a disservice. And let’s not also forget that communist revolutions have always been violent. Marx himself says it should be.

When you see things like this

You’re not on the good side.

Additionally, you see this

You’re also not on the good side

I'm not sure I'd say this is a debate in "the west", but from what I've seen, almost entirely in America and it's certainly rarely discussed where I am. Regardless, freedom of speech, as I think has been explained by others, has absolutely nothing to do with universities, twitter, or any other organisation, but specifically government involvement.

Universities and social media outlets are perfectly entitled to block access to whomever they want.

As for woes discussed by individuals such as Milo and others in being shut down for having controversial or right-wing views, this is simply a disconnect in society between the perceived majority and actuality. We actually live in a far more right-wing than left-wing society (both where I am and in the US), yet if one were to follow mainstream media and social media, it's easy to misunderstand and think we live in a more left-wing than right-wing society. Consequently you have groups of individuals and bodies both trying to adjust the status quo on both sides of the fence, with both potentially feeling oppressed and both with valid experiences to back up this form of oppression.

Whilst you do indeed have a leftist push towards the silencing of right-wing perspectives such as Milo's and others, the oppression goes both ways, and that's simply the effect of a society which seems entirely confused over which perspective is actually the dominant, or governing perspective, and which one is the oppressed perspective. I blame this very much on the utilisation of left-wing language and imagery from covertly centrist or right-wing positions which has led to very confused political identities.

"Hate speech" is very much a thing and is traditionally incorporated in law. This is naturally to prevent the provocation of violence or to infringe on the freedoms of another. The blocking of hate speech is in no way restrictive of the freedom of speech, and anyone who thinks it is, misunderstands the definition of freedom of speech entirely. That said, we now live in a culture whereby people intentionally choose to bend language to suit their definition, meaning you have individuals deciding that their personal offense at something constitutes it being hate speech. Unfortunately, this doesn't alter the legal definition of hate speech. It's once again a disconnect between perception and reality, with some people deciding something is hate speech and therefore blocking it, causing those blocked to cry of oppression due to hate speech laws. This is entirely a social issue and not to do with hate speech laws though.

What I'm trying to get across is that it's nothing to do with freedom of speech. It's nothing to do with hate speech. It's simply a reality that we have a very confused society which acts on assumption and personal experience rather than the reality of a given situation. A society which also seems to bend language quite a lot, yet overlooks the fact that legal definitions don't change simultaneously.

You can say whatever you want, but if you act on it, then you can be legally punished.
And if what you say hurts someone, you'll have to face the consequences socially; if you're racist towards someone, then everyone at work who isn't a racist will distance themselves from you, and you'll have to suffer for it.
Also just use common sense and don't be a jerk for no reason.
There's too much that can go wrong with regulating freedom of speech in any capacity to make it worth our while.


Now I see that there are people who are upset, which is unsurprising.
So I shall impose a mandatory irrelevant meme intermission.

Peacemaker .45
YouTube videos aren't evidence unless they're from credible sources. Which yours are not. Also you included debunked fake news stories.
You clearly didn't even bother reviewing the evidence. Either provide legitimate evidence (which there is not because you're wrong) or stop with the nonthinking nonsense.
Here's more evidence proving you to be completely wrong.

stainsoftime said:

Peacemaker .45
YouTube videos aren't evidence unless they're from credible sources. Which yours are not. Also you included debunked fake news stories.
You clearly didn't even bother reviewing the evidence. Either provide legitimate evidence (which there is not because you're wrong) or stop with the nonthinking nonsense.
Here's more evidence proving you to be completely wrong.

Click to expand...

You’re using Slate, a left leaning website. They’re far from unbiased and a credible source.

The bike lock one is not debunked. He is facing jail time for charges of assault.

The NJ Department of Homeland Security specifically lists them as domestic terrorists on their official website.

Tim Pool is a very, very credible source, and one who is non biased. His coverage of the Berkeley riots shows that AntiFa showed up there to violently shut down anyone they didn’t like. And yes, they used things like firecrackers thrown into crowds of people.

They often claim to be communists, stating it’s a “revolution.” They say violence is okay.

They are responsible for mass property damage and assaults on Trump’s inauguration.

The politico story has not been debunked.

You’re living in a fantasy world where AntiFa never starts anything and they’re the good guys. You suffer extreme confirmation bias.

And yes, you are part of the problem of political violence and division in the world. You sit there and say the radical authoritarian right is the issue, and AntiFa isn’t. This is so factually false. You’re not condemning AntiFa. Instead, you’re sitting here and shilling for a violent group of authoritarian leftist anarchists. So much so that you’re denying credible evidence of them assaulting individuals (for example bike lock guy). Your confirmation bias is so evident with how you ignore all proof against your side, but will listen to leftist outlets with total and utter bias and use it as proof.

I’m more than happy to condemn the radical authoritarian right. But I can’t sit here and pretend AntiFa are good guys or not violent. Because they are. And government agencies are looking into it. They are bad, just as the radical authoritarian right. Stop covering for violent groups because they fit your ideology. Political violence is never okay. That is terrorism. AntiFa’s motivations are political and violent. They are domestic terrorists by definition.

Go through and debunk every link you claim has been debunked or false. Burden of proof is on you. And don’t use biased sources that are left or right leaning. Use credible, middle of the line sources. I’d really like to see you “debunk” them all, as you claimed they are.

Like I said, burden of proof is on you.

Peacemaker .45 said:

You’re using Slate, a left leaning website. They’re far from unbiased and a credible source.

The bike lock one is not debunked. He is facing jail time for charges of assault.

The NJ Department of Homeland Security specifically lists them as domestic terrorists on their official website.

Tim Pool is a very, very credible source, and one who is non biased. His coverage of the Berkeley riots shows that AntiFa showed up there to violently shut down anyone they didn’t like. And yes, they used things like firecrackers thrown into crowds of people.

They often claim to be communists, stating it’s a “revolution.” They say violence is okay.

They are responsible for mass property damage and assaults on Trump’s inauguration.

The politico story has not been debunked.

You’re living in a fantasy world where AntiFa never starts anything and they’re the good guys. You suffer extreme confirmation bias.

And yes, you are part of the problem of political violence and division in the world. You sit there and say the radical authoritarian right is the issue, and AntiFa isn’t. This is so factually false. You’re not condemning AntiFa. Instead, you’re sitting here and shilling for a violent group of authoritarian leftist anarchists. So much so that you’re denying credible evidence of them assaulting individuals (for example bike lock guy). Your confirmation bias is so evident with how you ignore all proof against your side, but will listen to leftist outlets with total and utter bias and use it as proof.

I’m more than happy to condemn the radical authoritarian right. But I can’t sit here and pretend AntiFa are good guys or not violent. Because they are. And government agencies are looking into it. They are bad, just as the radical authoritarian right. Stop covering for violent groups because they fit your ideology. Political violence is never okay. That is terrorism. AntiFa’s motivations are political and violent. They are domestic terrorists by definition.

Go through and debunk every link you claim has been debunked or false. Burden of proof is on you. And don’t use biased sources that are left or right leaning. Use credible, middle of the line sources. I’d really like to see you “debunk” them all, as you claimed they are.

Like I said, burden of proof is on you.

Click to expand...

I'd just like to chip in with saying that using buzz or trigger words doesn't add weight to anyone's argument. Anarchism is the polar opposite of Authoritarianism and isn't just a groovy word for rebellious or revolutionary. Anarchism and anarchists specifically follow the belief of there being no authority at all, not that they are the authority. Authoritarians specifically believe in strict authority and hierarchy. These terms are practically mutually exclusive.

As for terrorism, there are actually hundreds of definitions of terrorism thanks to its entry into society as a political buzzword, so claiming something is terrorism by definition is very difficult when the definition of terrorism is not concrete. The traditionally accepted definition of terrorism is also not the one you linked to. Although that definition is convenient to your argument and allows for great trigger phrases, the traditionally accepted definition also adds note to an underlying ambition to force destabilisation in a government and force reaction. Applying this to angry leftists oppressing people with right-wing views is really stretching that definition, but certainly saying it is "by definition" as such, is just misleading when considering the loose definition of the word and very vague connection into your argument.

Again, despite how you disapprove of how these people are acting, buzz words don't support your argument at all. As outlined above in my earlier post, I see oppression on both sides, but the use of buzz/trigger language is only reciprocating the exact activity which the left is known for, and only truly makes the argument of the right hypocritical by pursuing this approach.

I was also going to critique, though not entirely seriously, that calling Antifa and the like "anarchists" is an insult to Anarchists! Those who don't believe in creating chaos, although that is -popularly- understood as the meaning of Anarchy/Anarchism; rather they want an end to authoritarian government I guess; I'm not an Anarchist but that's my 2 little Lincolns for the time being (watching the thread though just because).

Suum said:

I'd just like to chip in with saying that using buzz or trigger words doesn't add weight to anyone's argument. Anarchism is the polar opposite of Authoritarianism and isn't just a groovy word for rebellious or revolutionary. Anarchism and anarchists specifically follow the belief of there being no authority at all, not that they are the authority. Authoritarians specifically believe in strict authority and hierarchy. These terms are practically mutually exclusive.

As for terrorism, there are actually hundreds of definitions of terrorism thanks to its entry into society as a political buzzword, so claiming something is terrorism by definition is very difficult when the definition of terrorism is not concrete. The traditionally accepted definition of terrorism is also not the one you linked to. Although that definition is convenient to your argument and allows for great trigger phrases, the traditionally accepted definition also adds note to an underlying ambition to force destabilisation in a government and force reaction. Applying this to angry leftists oppressing people with right-wing views is really stretching that definition, but certainly saying it is "by definition" as such, is just misleading when considering the loose definition of the word and very vague connection into your argument.

Again, despite how you disapprove of how these people are acting, buzz words don't support your argument at all. As outlined above in my earlier post, I see oppression on both sides, but the use of buzz/trigger language is only reciprocating the exact activity which the left is known for, and only truly makes the argument of the right hypocritical by pursuing this approach.

Click to expand...

I will concede that I did get a little too emotional here and dis use some buzzwords. I’ll concede to that. Normally I am a lot more calm and not aggressive or use buzzwords. While not trying to make excuses, I will say some exterior stuff going on for me recently that have made me more agitated lately.

As for what you say about anarchism and authoritarianism, you’re correct. But, AntiFa often use various languages to describe themselves. Anarchists, communists, authoritarian leftists. The issue with AntiFa is that they’re not a formal group. This can lead to confusion on classifying them.

But I will concede that emotions did get the better of me, and I was too aggressive. Gravitational Force i do apologize for getting so aggressive towards you and using buzzwords. I’ll try to not let any agitation effect myself in being calm in the debate/discussion. However, my points I was trying to make, and the questions I asked, buzzwords and emotions set aside, still stand.

Peacemaker .45 said:

You’re using Slate, a left leaning website. They’re far from unbiased and a credible source.

Click to expand...

Genetic fallacy.
The rest of your nonsense is already shown to be garbage with the sources I've already used. Your continued refusal to admit you've got nothing more than assertions and cherry-picked examples show why nobody should take your claims seriously.
I've met the burden of proof AND I've shown your 'evidence' to be BS. Your continued dishonesty does not surprise me and neither does your continued strawmanning.
And since you're so far right that factual new reporting is 'biased' to you, you're arguing in bad faith. You're just like Trump, yelling 'fake news' whenever a news source proves you're dishonest or outright lying. Or out of touch with reality.
You have not addressed a single one of my claims or sources honestly. I think that says more than enough about you.
And Tim Pool? Seriously? Why not try someone who doesn't cover for white supremacists.

Oof, this one's getting out of hand quite quickly. Should I call the mods? I think we should call the mods.

But, i'll put in my two cents on the original questions posed in the original post while we're at it.

The freedom of speech is something that can be easily misconstrued and misused easily. Yes, people can say really, really terrible things to each other, because it's honestly quite easy, and talk is so cheap, anybody can do it. And the best part is, is that sometimes, people actually believe what you say, whether you are telling the truth or not, depending on your credibility.

It's fair to say that there are a good amount of people with loud voices that very clearly stand against the results of the 2016 presidential polls for the U.S., and there is another good amount of people who hold differing opinions that support in some what the outcome of that poll, whether they do so flamboyantly, or just cheer for a republican victory, despite not really agreeing with the actions or words that the U.S. president may say, because there's no denying it, he's not exactly the most polite person.

However, just because said people may voice their opinions, this shouldn't warrant violent actions against them. Violence, really isn't the answer to this, no matter what the situation is. Talk is very, very cheap, and when one overhears conversation that is deemed as derogatory, or persecuting another group of people, in this day and age, one would peacock, open up their feathers and appear huge and looming, a sudden and viable threat to the injustice being spoken. And so, the idea is put in jail, and equality wins the day again.

But equality doesn't win the day again, because now, anybody who might somehow voice their positive opinion on what the president is doing is corrected at best, and hunted down at worst. Now, political tensions are brewing, and people are scared to open their mouth, as their more loud and vicious counterparts are doing all the talking for them, and the same sort of anger that would be directed at these faucets of hate are shunted onto the smaller outlets for having a different opinion, and as a person who holds no political view, I find this deeply upsetting. Hurting each other, fighting, broken friendships, and animosity over... What? A bumper sticker. A slip of the tongue, of 'He' rather than 'She', which I can personally understand is a very hurtful misinterpretation, but should be greeted with patience, rather than anger, or in the case of repeated offence, arrive with numbers.

Don't kill me for having different opinions, or not stating my sources, but these are clear and concise thoughts. Extremist groups are just that. How many KKK members do you know? Even on the internet, how many can you name? Consider this as well, how many attacks spurred onto minority groups are there in 2016 and 2017 in comparison to the Obama's first term? Just a few things to think about.