RSS
Who knows how accurate these numbers are, but I’m sure they’re not too far off.
This is why democracy is so retarded.
A new poll from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression finds that four in five Americans believe “at least slightly” that words can amount to violence.
Forty-five percent of those surveyed said they agreed “completely” or “mostly” with the statement “words can be violence,” with another 22 percent saying “somewhat.”
Only 20 percent said the statement “does not describe my thoughts at all.”
Those most likely to agree with the statement were women and members of the Democratic Party; those least likely were Republicans, independents, and men.
(Of note, overall almost three-quarters of Republicans and men did “slightly,” “somewhat,” “mostly,” or “completely” agree with the statement.)
These are some other results quoted as part of the poll:
- Only 55 percent said Americans should have the right to “post a parody video mocking a candidate for public office.”
- Just over one-third agreed people “definitely or probably should have the right to use profanity when speaking with elected officials.”
- A mere one-quarter of Americans believe freedom of speech is “secure.”
- Almost two-thirds believe the U.S. is “heading in the WRONG direction” when it comes to being “able to freely express their views.”
From the FIRE poll press release on the poll:
Gen-Zers were also more likely to say that words are violence, with only 12% of 18-24-year-olds rejecting the idea entirely. But seniors aren’t far behind, with 16% of those older than 65 saying it doesn’t describe their thoughts at all. Gen X is the most speech-supportive age group, with 32% of those between the ages of 45 and 52 completely rejecting the idea that words can be violence.
…
“Equating words with violence trivializes actual physical harm, shuts down conversations, and even encourages real violence by justifying the use of force against offensive speech,” said FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff. “Free speech isn’t violence, it’s the best alternative to violence ever invented.”
The peasants cannot run themselves. They can be convinced of anything. We hope these people can run lawnmowers and read posted signage, but on the whole, you cannot expect much of them.
What is the point of empowering the masses of peasants with universal suffrage other than to allow the elite to manipulate the function of government at levels unheard of in history?
Before voting, at least before universal voting, you had an aristocracy that was invested in the society, and wanted people to do well. I’m sure they liked living well themselves, they liked having money and power. But the impetus for normal corruption was minimal, and there was absolutely no incentive to do bizarre social engineering to the society. Furthermore, the aristocracy was forced to follow the Bible (at least publicly), which means there were limits on what they were even capable of doing to the population.
Most importantly, the aristocracy was where the buck stopped. If something went wrong, everyone knew who to blame. This is still the case in places like China, where Xi Jinping has no one to blame if things go bad.
When the country’s sovereign authority is “the people,” which means “the overwhelming mass of idiotic peasants,” no one is ever responsible for anything.
In China, when they had protests against the coronavirus measures, the people protested and within hours the government convened and the measures were all canceled. When is the last time a democracy changed a policy because people protested?
A democracy is totally corrupt. The people in the government have no investment in the society, they are simply trying to grab whatever wealth they can and then escape. A system this fundamentally corrupt can only ever become a tyranny, because there are people who benefit from abusing the population and they will simply pay the politicians to put through their agenda.
Somehow, we’ve come to associate “democracy” with “freedom,” when the opposite is actually the case. Peasants in feudal Europe had much more freedom than modern Americans. The feudal lord was not coming and checking the length of your swords, he wasn’t requiring you to have a license to go fishing on public land, and he sure as hell wasn’t trying to convince your son to cut his dick off. The lord was not flooding you with foreigners, he was not legalizing violent crime, he was not devaluing your currency, he was not destroying family formation with women’s rights.
All of this tyrannical behavior from the US government is only possible because of the democracy system, and when you see polls showing that the overwhelming majority want to outlaw freedom of speech, you realize just how ridiculous this all is.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
You should know that in the Philippines, and some other countries, verbal violence is equivalent to physical violence in their law, and if you are targeted by verbal abuse, you have the right to draw your gun and kill the offender in self-defence. This is why in those Southeast Asian countries people tend to be polite, and any insults inevitably escalate to murderous violence. Just try insulting someone’s family or religion in many Asian countries and see what you get. Also physical confrontations, like slapping or punching someone can get you killed, and the losing party of a fight will turn up later with a gang or a weapon to extract revenge. The law can be quite understanding of someone retaliating to insults or physical attacks with grevious bodily harm (GBH)11 or murder. Is that so bad? What is wrong with people being polite and smiling while keeping any insulting opinions of others to themselves? It’s called “respect” and not showing it will get you murdered, and the cops and judges could well give such a killer a pass.
Now that America is importing so many people from such countries, it’s only fair that this is reflected in popular opinion, and possibly eventually in law itself.
What rage bait. Believing in pollslop is worse than believing in democracy. They are both fake and retarded.
ooh wow, a whopping 32%…
should read more like Gen X is the least speech-unsupportive age group
How many believe a Jew on a stick (and not just some Jew, but King of the Jews) is their God? Anglin does. Is that some sort of highly intellectual belief?
Judge not lest you be judged, Anglin.
Do you know the story of how a bunch of aristocrat vikings engaged in bizarre social engineering of Slav society under their control?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Kievan_Rus%27
The American ruling class has polls like this published when they want to force a change on the proles. Remember when 90% of Americans were opposed to fake homosexual “marriage”? Liberal California actually passed a law prohibiting the degenerate activity. Suddenly, after a court order (forced in by a degenerate homosexual judge) they began publishing polls showing everyone was really opposed to the law they’d passed. Now when you speak out against the disgusting practice, you might as well be wearing a White hood with gestapo insignia.
So what does the venn diagram look like for responses to this question and the question of whether words amount to violence? Someone who answered WRONG and YES, logically, must think that Americas are still too free to express their views and that’s a bad thing. Or he might just be a moron, which is more likely.
Frankly, it seems that the best argument for Christianity today — real, historical, liturgical, apostolic Christianity, e.g., Catholicism and Orthodoxy— is how it is the focus of the contempt and hatred of modern Talmudic Judaism and the modern anti-God, anti-civilization Globohomo world. It’s the only that runs entirely counter to this view.
I mean, even if I weren’t Catholic, the fact that those who hold such evil views are opposed to it would make want to embrace it. Maybe that is why, near the end of his life, the super-based super-genius Bobby Fischer told his close friend that he thought, “[T]he only hope for the world is through Catholicism.”*
*Frank Brady, Endgame: The Spectacular Rise and Fall of Bobby Fischer (London: Constable & Robinson, 2011), p. 456].
I’ve been reliably informed that words are weapons, sharper than knives, which makes me wonder how the other half dies?
Also, sometimes, words like violence, break the silence then come crashing in – into my little world.
They’re painful to me & pierce right through me; can’t you understand?
Oh, my little girl
Destroying the Constitution including free expression will mark the completion of the Jew transformation of the US from a free country to a communist Orwellian state. The “hate speech” fraud will actually work on idiotic Americans who apparently can be convinced of anything as long as the right Jew marketing technique is applied. Get ready to spend time in prison for daring to utter a negative word about Jews, blacks, LGBT freaks, or illegals.
>it’s only fair
I guess one person’s ‘fairness’ is another’s anger at incompatible racial aliens having been allowed to colonize his country — or maybe disgust at the cowardly suggestion that basic freedoms his ancestors fought to secure should be surrendered.
What a faggot.
Should have been titled “Retarded Nigger-Faggots”
Polls are bogus…as we used to say on the playground, “sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me..”
But any American who doesn’t believe in free speech should be deported…
Especially Supreme Court Justices….
The branches of Christianity that don’t recognize demonic entity Yahweh as Satan and his chosen Jews as Satan worshipers? What good are these branches? Catholicism especially is a joke, promoting satanic tranny-loving Pope as the infallible head of faith.
Democracy is the best form of government except for all the others.
Anglin believes he is a new reporter, but in reality, he is just an instigator of crime. His writings could cause the crazy ones to commit a crime that would not have occurred before reading his articles.
The law has a provision for “fighting words.” These are things the speaker knows (or should know) might provoke a punch in the nose, and would get the speaker in trouble with the law no matter what type of physical altercation then took place. I agree with this principle.
Many decades ago, calling someone a “m*****-f****r was always taken literally (i.e., you and your m*****). This always resulted in a fight.
I agree that US citizens should be more polite toward each other.
Eh…., not so much.
Niggers commit crimes at rates exponentially higher than any other group and it isn’t close.
Look at this shit.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dallas-singer-shot-onstage-while-194713161.html
“A Dallas singer has been hospitalized after she was shot onstage following a performance Saturday with The Black Academy of Arts and Letters in downtown Dallas, police said.
Jada Arnell Thomas, 26, was signing autographs onstage when a woman in the crowd shot her, witnesses told NBC DFW.”
Now I don’t know for sure if the shooter (A black female, quelle horreur! What a shock!!!), who, of course still had the fuck’n gun when she was apprehended (Goddamn what retards!) is familiar with Anglin’s oeuvre, but I would bet against it.
What I would bet, is that our own little Ashley P. is a white girl “ally” burdened with guilt and looking for ways to assuage that guilt by way of a self inflicted, moral imperative that results in the assignation of her lips on a nigger hang down.
It was once said- The best reason against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average citizen.
Pardon me, but I’m really confused here … it was just a few years ago that these leftist students were telling US that ‘silence is violence’ … and now it’s words that are violence? Really?
LOL. I think that’s credited to Churchill–not sure.
Similar to Roseanne Barr saying her preferred method of birth control was for her and her husband to spend time with their kids before bedtime.
Verbally insulting someone was once cause for a duel among Whites. What’s so faggoty about that? It’s like some of those Third Worlders preserved what was common to Whites. Lynching too, or rather people taking the law into their own hands. But if the law is truly fair and protects everyone from physical and verbal assault, I guess this extralegal justice is unnecessary.
Putting aside the deeper issue of free will and personal agency, how about a crazy sports fan who commits a crime against a coach or player that would not have occurred before reading a critical article?
Leftists adopt and discard bedrock principles depending on whatever furthers their goal in the moment.
Until not so long ago duelling played a similar role in Western societies. Doesn’t H. A. Covington reinstitute the practice in his Northwest Republic?
I haven’t read any of Covington’s novels.
Duelling was practiced even though it was illegal in European countries for a long time.
Placing obscenity, blaspheme, defamation and the like in the same bag as the freedom of expressing any position on any subject obscures the problem. The term “free speech” itself does not protect only political or philosophical expression, but also “artistic” or “humorous” slurs and indecencies.
Freedom of debate is the loser in such a claim for across-the-board defense of unbridled “expression”. Protecting people against media, education and private indecency is necessary in order to protect freedom of debate.