The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Free Speech vs Hate Speech Over Time
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Trends, search volume in the US for “hate speech” as a percentage of search volume for “free speech” by year:

Extrapolating from 2014 through to the present, a fourth slogan will roll out around 2030: Free speech is hate speech.

Dragonfly isn’t dead, it has just been hidden underground. Intellectual totalitarianism is scaling and strengthening. The great disease Bill Lind warned about two decades ago has metastasized. It now afflicts virtually every institution in the West. Putatively anonymous discussions on internet forums are increasingly being compromised. Hushed whispers in places devoid of smart devices are the last redoubts.

In addition to the rhetorical question of whether or not the US actually won the Cold War, there is another acute angle to the clampdown. Support for free speech correlates strongly with intelligence. Although he didn’t intend it as alternative narration to the opening vignette of Idiocracy, it could have been:

The people in charge will go to the mat to defend pornography freely available on-line, but scream bloody murder if Facebook lets someone talk about biology on their platform. Scientists are losing their careers, while pornographers are celebrated. It’s close to a 180 degree change from thirty years ago. In 1985, retailers were still keeping smut in the back room, away from the general public. Video rental places had a secret room for porn. Today, porn is so ubiquitous no one notices.

The power of the formal state isn’t the issue. To the contrary, the state–at least in the US–is currently a net defender of free speech, if an ineffective and unmotivated one. It’s not the state that splashes pornography everywhere while banishing those who talk about biology. It’s tech companies like Twitter that do. Simply searching “porn videos” yields an endless stream of hardcore fornicating, while a tweet about IQ, a subject buttressed by a century’s worth of scientific literature, is here today and gone tomorrow.

 
Hide 47 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. For any who haven’t seen this, we were warned.

  2. On the article, the suppression of free speech, and the force feeding of trash information,

    On Stan d Mute’s comment to the article

    For any who haven’t seen this, we were warned.

    Stan, indeed the short mind-burst meant for broad consumption says it all.

    Time having done it’s thing, the Sovjet Block, must be replaced with the single global enemy. “The system”, regardless, Chinese, US, EU, Russia, there is nothing new there or here. The obvious is being ignored. There is no sustainability in the global system left. It’s shelf life has expired. There is also no longer a local on the ruling level anywhere on the Planet.

    Time having played it’s usual tricks, social media and all, the variable of what was accounted for in the short clip’s covert suggestion, the ignorance of “Americans” included the masses and middle classes, and of course not one but multi generational elites by now, bred for lying about, not balls and brains.

    The Malinois dog breed does give us a better example of what that can mean. So taking in the time factor extend “American” to Global Society and we are updating the thorough hindsight of the individual on the clip.
    On top, it is underwritten by the interviewer in a timeless fashion: “So what must we do?”

    As if the explanation is not self-evident. Well it is not.

    And now we get back to our cherished columns, pieces, and other knitting here on unz.com. No the message of the clip is not understood. And worse if it would be understood, and stand up to time, it is such a psychological draw that most of our doggies do not have the stamina regardless of the mind-power to stand up to it.

    An example, associative thinking, holding bits of information, catalogue them, and building new associations on top as things come (“news”, novel articles, streaming in), discarding bends and flaws is above the fray here.

    It is never that here on Unz readers “jump” the comment column of an explicit article and bring it in obvious correlation with another. What Shamir says, then Karlin, then Sailer, a Paul Craig Roberts is contained within the mind – moment of the comments. So no base knowledge is built, anything goes. That underwrites the essential point: there is but contempt for you reader, and you deserve it. What’s more, most of the content producers, are as far from an essential grasp of things as their readers. Their thing is “writing”, recycling words and go on at infinity. The artesan at work.

    Ron Unz, a level up knows this, so indeed the matching controversial viewpoints within the same pages, no necessity in recalling unproven viewpoints, bends into every corner, verbose hooks into everything, linear dissertations into nowhere is a “smart” juggling, psychological truth.

    Ron lives for page-views, reader base. And it works sublimely, …as long as the reader base, be it a niche is below a certain level of comprehension. The strategy can be easily extended into the political arena, business, technology incorporated. And for that they should, there is no gratitude in “educating” the masses, the processing power is simply not there. One cannot put a key into a door that has no matching keyhole. Sex is based on the same principle.

    The top of our system, the systemics, hopelessly exempt of rational, the under-layers of global society, the population base hopelessly incapacitated, for the outliers, there is but one thing to do.

    Lay back in comfort or burden, relax, and if possible enjoy. All layers of society of planet Earth are affected, and that makes for civilizational severe mutilation, systemic change. Coming and coming soon.

  3. What makes you so sure of what writers the readers on unz read, and what the overlap is, M? From this bit of nonsense:

    The top of our system, the systemics, hopelessly exempt of rational, the under-layers of global society, the population base hopelessly incapacitated for the outliers there is but one thing to do. [sic – WTF?!]

    I’m getting the idea that you ought to read more and write less.

    • Replies: @m___


    ...The top of our system, the systemics, hopelessly exempt of rational, the under-layers of global society, the population base hopelessly incapacitated, for the outliers, there is but one thing to do.
     
    [sic – WTF?!]

     

    You made us see the light, please annul my brokerage.
  4. No, the current State is NO defender of free speech, A.E. Try speaking truth about feminism, genderbenders, and race relations on the campus quad sometime. Once you get out of the hospital, and out of court, a coupla years later, see who from The State is on your side.

    Don’t get me wrong – I understand that Amendment I limits (if the Constitution were followed) the State’s ability to tell you what you can’t say. However, you will get no help, and, quite to the contrary, your attackers will get help, from the State if you seriously exercise the right. The Charlottesville incident is a good example.

    The actual, formerly sovereign, formerly United, States are the ones that run the lower-ed, and now only part of, the higher-ed, schools. Have you seen what kind of BS they teach, even in first grade? Lord help the student that repeats some of the truth from his parents.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Relative to corporate America, I think it is. Groups like American Renaissance can't hold events in private commercial places, only in government ones. Same thing with Richard Spencer's thing.
  5. @Achmed E. Newman
    What makes you so sure of what writers the readers on unz read, and what the overlap is, M? From this bit of nonsense:

    The top of our system, the systemics, hopelessly exempt of rational, the under-layers of global society, the population base hopelessly incapacitated for the outliers there is but one thing to do. [sic - WTF?!]
     
    I'm getting the idea that you ought to read more and write less.

    …The top of our system, the systemics, hopelessly exempt of rational, the under-layers of global society, the population base hopelessly incapacitated, for the outliers, there is but one thing to do.

    [sic – WTF?!]

    You made us see the light, please annul my brokerage.

  6. You made us see the light, please annul my brokerage.

    See, now that’s exactly what I was talking about.

    You’re either a computer program, from another country, or a computer program from another country.

    • Replies: @iffen
    You’re either a computer program, from another country, or a computer program from another country.

    AaronB who has stumbled upon a really nasty stash.
  7. @Achmed E. Newman

    You made us see the light, please annul my brokerage.
     
    See, now that's exactly what I was talking about.

    You're either a computer program, from another country, or a computer program from another country.

    You’re either a computer program, from another country, or a computer program from another country.

    AaronB who has stumbled upon a really nasty stash.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Haha. AaronB sometimes writes OK stuff. I think he's out of the country, so maybe doesn't keep up with what's really going on sometimes.
  8. Sit back and grill meme empirically verified

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    Matches some British studies i saw a while back that indicated Liberal policy minded people get active in the teens, conservatives in the late twenties or not at all till they're middle-age

    I'll try to find it but its been years
    , @Audacious Epigone
    White cultural imperialism.

    Your job is supposed to shut up and listen!
  9. Priss Factor [AKA "Asagirian"] says: • Website

    I support Free Speech as a principle, but the Dissident Right must think strategically.

    The problem with free speech in practice is that it allows both true and false speech. Free speech is for all speech. Saying sun revolves around the earth is free speech. Saying Fig Foot exists is free speech. Saying Santa or tooth fairy exists is free speech. Saying 2 + 2 = 5 is free speech. Saying Hitler loved Jews is free speech. Saying space Martians killed JFK and MLK is free speech.
    Now, as a defender of free speech, I defend the right to say all of the above. But free speech carries a lot of baggage of false, even crazy, speech.

    So, what the dissident right should fight for right now is TRUE SPEECH. A True Speech Movement. TSM would be about the right and need to speak the UNDENIABLE TRUTH about Jewish Power, black thuggery, racial differences, problems of diversity, abnormality and deviance about homomania, and etc.
    If we only complain that PC suppresses Free Speech, the powers-that-be can say they are suppressing false speech that spread hate. And there is a lot of false speech from nuttier elements of the Right. That gives globo-homo the moral high ground as the righteous defenders of justice against lying haters. In order for the dissident right to gain the moral high ground, it must say it stands for True Speech against PC that promotes false speech and, if anything, defames and hates certain groups, esp whites and Palestinians.

    It’s like this. Insisting that “2 + 2 = 4” against the notion that “2 + 2 = 5, 6, 7, or etc” is more potent than arguing that one should be free to say “2 + 2 = 5, 6, 7, or etc” against the obvious truth of “2 + 2 = 4”. Former is True Speech, latter is Free Speech. True Speech is like as assassin’s rifle that hits the bull’s eye. Free speech is like a shotgun whose scatter-shot may hit the bull’s eye but that everything as well.

    Now, of course, we need free speech to have true speech. After all, we can’t have the truth without freedom to discuss and review all positions. Even science must allow for false hypotheses to be tried out before the true theory finally arises.
    Also, many sides speak some kernels of truth and some falsehoods; almost no side is totally true, and almost no side is totally false.

    Still, because the Enemy associates Free Speech with reckless freedom to say anything no matter how crazy or false, the dissident right must present itself as less about freedom to be crazy and wrong — shotgunners drunk on moonshine — and more about the commitment to speaking truth, esp truth to power, the REAL power — riflemen aiming for the bull’s eye. That way, the dissident right can present itself as upholders of truth against truth-molesters of PC. That’s why we need TSM.

    Another thing. Even though I reject the notion of ‘hate speech’ in principle, the dissident right needs to use it selectively. Sometimes offense is best defense.
    When were Jews most supportive of free speech? When Jewish communists, radicals, and pornographers were censored and blacklisted, even prosecuted and jailed. People who feel no threat to their own Free Speech will try to shut down the free speech of Others. Most people don’t see free speech as a universal principle but as tribal right. e.g. “Free speech for us Jews, no free speech for Palestinians of BDS and ‘anti-Semites’.”
    So, in order to make powerful Jews support free speech again, their speech must be threatened. This is where the dissident right should exploit the notion of ‘hate speech’. Argue that Zionism is hate speech against Palestinians and must be silenced. Argue that globalism and ‘liberal democracy’ are crypto-hate-speech to foment Wars for Israel to kill millions of Muslims. Argue against L-DINO or Liberal Democracy in Name Only. What is called ‘liberal democracy’ is actually Tribal Oligarchy, or Tribal Oligarchy In Practice. And denounce homomaniacal talk as hate speech against decency, normality, morality, and science — is a man’s bunghole really the equivalent of a vagina?

    Only when their own speech is attacked as ‘hate speech’ will globo-homo forces show interest in free speech again.

    • Replies: @216
    The bottom text on that meme is unhelpful. That ordinary gets ripped as a "cursed boomer image"

    I see that you like walls of text. But most people don't.

    The top line is very good, "Jews treat Whites like Palestinians" forces a left-wing BDS supporter to divide by zero. If assorted Alt-Right individuals actually wanted to hurt the Jews where it counts, they'd disguise themselves as leftists and become entryists in the BDS movement.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    That's a high-level argument that may be tactically effective among the cognitively gifted and intellectually rigorous, but among most people it will just devolve into "your true speech is fake news", "no, your true speech is fake news".

    To put the argument in bumper sticker format: Free speech is how we discover truth.
  10. 216 says:
    @Priss Factor
    I support Free Speech as a principle, but the Dissident Right must think strategically.

    The problem with free speech in practice is that it allows both true and false speech. Free speech is for all speech. Saying sun revolves around the earth is free speech. Saying Fig Foot exists is free speech. Saying Santa or tooth fairy exists is free speech. Saying 2 + 2 = 5 is free speech. Saying Hitler loved Jews is free speech. Saying space Martians killed JFK and MLK is free speech.
    Now, as a defender of free speech, I defend the right to say all of the above. But free speech carries a lot of baggage of false, even crazy, speech.

    So, what the dissident right should fight for right now is TRUE SPEECH. A True Speech Movement. TSM would be about the right and need to speak the UNDENIABLE TRUTH about Jewish Power, black thuggery, racial differences, problems of diversity, abnormality and deviance about homomania, and etc.
    If we only complain that PC suppresses Free Speech, the powers-that-be can say they are suppressing false speech that spread hate. And there is a lot of false speech from nuttier elements of the Right. That gives globo-homo the moral high ground as the righteous defenders of justice against lying haters. In order for the dissident right to gain the moral high ground, it must say it stands for True Speech against PC that promotes false speech and, if anything, defames and hates certain groups, esp whites and Palestinians.

    https://gab.ai/media/image/bq-5c81d0aa4e5a8.jpeg

    It's like this. Insisting that "2 + 2 = 4" against the notion that "2 + 2 = 5, 6, 7, or etc" is more potent than arguing that one should be free to say "2 + 2 = 5, 6, 7, or etc" against the obvious truth of "2 + 2 = 4". Former is True Speech, latter is Free Speech. True Speech is like as assassin's rifle that hits the bull's eye. Free speech is like a shotgun whose scatter-shot may hit the bull's eye but that everything as well.

    Now, of course, we need free speech to have true speech. After all, we can't have the truth without freedom to discuss and review all positions. Even science must allow for false hypotheses to be tried out before the true theory finally arises.
    Also, many sides speak some kernels of truth and some falsehoods; almost no side is totally true, and almost no side is totally false.

    Still, because the Enemy associates Free Speech with reckless freedom to say anything no matter how crazy or false, the dissident right must present itself as less about freedom to be crazy and wrong -- shotgunners drunk on moonshine -- and more about the commitment to speaking truth, esp truth to power, the REAL power -- riflemen aiming for the bull's eye. That way, the dissident right can present itself as upholders of truth against truth-molesters of PC. That's why we need TSM.

    Another thing. Even though I reject the notion of 'hate speech' in principle, the dissident right needs to use it selectively. Sometimes offense is best defense.
    When were Jews most supportive of free speech? When Jewish communists, radicals, and pornographers were censored and blacklisted, even prosecuted and jailed. People who feel no threat to their own Free Speech will try to shut down the free speech of Others. Most people don't see free speech as a universal principle but as tribal right. e.g. "Free speech for us Jews, no free speech for Palestinians of BDS and 'anti-Semites'."
    So, in order to make powerful Jews support free speech again, their speech must be threatened. This is where the dissident right should exploit the notion of 'hate speech'. Argue that Zionism is hate speech against Palestinians and must be silenced. Argue that globalism and 'liberal democracy' are crypto-hate-speech to foment Wars for Israel to kill millions of Muslims. Argue against L-DINO or Liberal Democracy in Name Only. What is called 'liberal democracy' is actually Tribal Oligarchy, or Tribal Oligarchy In Practice. And denounce homomaniacal talk as hate speech against decency, normality, morality, and science -- is a man's bunghole really the equivalent of a vagina?

    Only when their own speech is attacked as 'hate speech' will globo-homo forces show interest in free speech again.

    The bottom text on that meme is unhelpful. That ordinary gets ripped as a “cursed boomer image”

    I see that you like walls of text. But most people don’t.

    The top line is very good, “Jews treat Whites like Palestinians” forces a left-wing BDS supporter to divide by zero. If assorted Alt-Right individuals actually wanted to hurt the Jews where it counts, they’d disguise themselves as leftists and become entryists in the BDS movement.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    If assorted Alt-Right individuals actually wanted to hurt the Jews where it counts, they’d disguise themselves as leftists and become entryists in the BDS movement.
     
    It is highly tempting to “give them exactly what they ask for - good and hard” to “teach them a lesson.”

    The central problem is that they are as children. Assuming that they do get what they ask for and that it hurts them immensely, they will deflect and deny blame for the outcome. We see this with socialist “intellectuals” who insist that it’s just never been done properly before.

    What we need to recognize is that even very bright people can be as children. Just imagine a very bright kid and you’re on track. “Words can hurt” means “truth can hurt” which means that one lacks mental maturity to accept reality or nature and face it squarely to deal with the consequences as an adult.

    We see today the result of infantilization on civilizational scale. Reduce this to the micro scale and it’s obvious as in a family I know that raised three children according to the whims and demands of the one retarded (IQ 30 Down Syndrome) child with the predictable results on the two normal children. Of this family of five, only one drew the correct conclusion and the others, parents and siblings, all live in complete denial of reality in nearly every aspect of their lives despite being of very high intelligence. In other words, scaling back up, we live under rule of retards and pretend that the problems are external and beyond our ability to identify or control at root. Civilizationally we exist as a family led by bright children pretending that truth doesn’t exist or matter following the retard who cries loudest.

    This is enabled by our prosperity and I see no way for it to change without facing an existential crisis where our survival clearly depends on an ability for mature thinkers to assert control and recognition of this by the immature children who will otherwise perish. There just aren’t any deleterious consequences or they’re survivable without abandoning the childish fantasies and blame deflection.
  11. @Achmed E. Newman
    No, the current State is NO defender of free speech, A.E. Try speaking truth about feminism, genderbenders, and race relations on the campus quad sometime. Once you get out of the hospital, and out of court, a coupla years later, see who from The State is on your side.

    Don't get me wrong - I understand that Amendment I limits (if the Constitution were followed) the State's ability to tell you what you can't say. However, you will get no help, and, quite to the contrary, your attackers will get help, from the State if you seriously exercise the right. The Charlottesville incident is a good example.

    The actual, formerly sovereign, formerly United, States are the ones that run the lower-ed, and now only part of, the higher-ed, schools. Have you seen what kind of BS they teach, even in first grade? Lord help the student that repeats some of the truth from his parents.

    Relative to corporate America, I think it is. Groups like American Renaissance can’t hold events in private commercial places, only in government ones. Same thing with Richard Spencer’s thing.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I do know about that, especially the A.R. Conferences in Tennessee. IMO, that will only last (unfortunately, of course) until some big-enough ctrl-left group gets wind of this. It's not on the big radar screen yet. Mark my words, some group will bring the conferences up to some left-winger POS/POC in the US Feral Gov't and have the Park Service "stand down". I don't like it, but I can envision this.

    As far as the corporate world goes, regarding the companies that don't really have a dog in the fight, they are indeed a bunch of cowards. Peter Brimelow and his legal staff (Lydia) have been doing a bang-up job in getting compensation, but that still doesn't bother the hotel/conference-center big-wigs enough to get the next one to think twice. It'd be nice to have a contract with a LOT of money involved. Maybe the whole thing could be a fund-raising effort and people would just have to meet on-line ;-} However, there's nothing better than real face-to-face time.
    , @216
    As Starbucks is publicly traded, it would not surprise me if in the next quarterly earnings report that we see a sales miss or even a decline linked to Schultz's potential run for the Presidency.

    The left's activists are relentless as the survey data above indicates.

    Any national chain that granted AmRen the use of its site would face:
    -Real life targeted harassment, death threats and bomb threats called in.
    -A potential walkout by its non-white workers
    -Doxxing of management and employees not willing to walkout
    -Organized boycotts
    -Blue states and cities barring government travel in said chain
    -Potential rioting by Antifa, the site they use is in an inconvenient part of rural TN iirc
    -Financial deplatforming

    The thing is that the past two years of college campus riots has soured the public on free speech once they saw the security costs. Eventually the universities will find a judge that says that "unreasonable security costs" is grounds to bar a speaker from campus.

    If we value "One Milo" as the average cost of each controversial speaker, how many Milos would it take to bring universities/cities nationwide into a standstill? I think Berkeley was a seven figure cost, and Spencer in Florida was a six figure cost.

    Comparatively, deterring these events is accomplished mostly when leftist voluneers engaging in altruistic punishment doxx the attendees.

    Even long ago (2003) there was still serious pushback from the SPLC that such conferences should even exist. The word "violence" or "threat" is not found once, but they gleefully retort about some Canadian being convicted of hate speech violations.

    https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/paleoconservatives-decry-immigration
  12. @216
    Sit back and grill meme empirically verified

    https://twitter.com/ZachG932/status/1104120448772640768

    Matches some British studies i saw a while back that indicated Liberal policy minded people get active in the teens, conservatives in the late twenties or not at all till they’re middle-age

    I’ll try to find it but its been years

  13. @Priss Factor
    I support Free Speech as a principle, but the Dissident Right must think strategically.

    The problem with free speech in practice is that it allows both true and false speech. Free speech is for all speech. Saying sun revolves around the earth is free speech. Saying Fig Foot exists is free speech. Saying Santa or tooth fairy exists is free speech. Saying 2 + 2 = 5 is free speech. Saying Hitler loved Jews is free speech. Saying space Martians killed JFK and MLK is free speech.
    Now, as a defender of free speech, I defend the right to say all of the above. But free speech carries a lot of baggage of false, even crazy, speech.

    So, what the dissident right should fight for right now is TRUE SPEECH. A True Speech Movement. TSM would be about the right and need to speak the UNDENIABLE TRUTH about Jewish Power, black thuggery, racial differences, problems of diversity, abnormality and deviance about homomania, and etc.
    If we only complain that PC suppresses Free Speech, the powers-that-be can say they are suppressing false speech that spread hate. And there is a lot of false speech from nuttier elements of the Right. That gives globo-homo the moral high ground as the righteous defenders of justice against lying haters. In order for the dissident right to gain the moral high ground, it must say it stands for True Speech against PC that promotes false speech and, if anything, defames and hates certain groups, esp whites and Palestinians.

    https://gab.ai/media/image/bq-5c81d0aa4e5a8.jpeg

    It's like this. Insisting that "2 + 2 = 4" against the notion that "2 + 2 = 5, 6, 7, or etc" is more potent than arguing that one should be free to say "2 + 2 = 5, 6, 7, or etc" against the obvious truth of "2 + 2 = 4". Former is True Speech, latter is Free Speech. True Speech is like as assassin's rifle that hits the bull's eye. Free speech is like a shotgun whose scatter-shot may hit the bull's eye but that everything as well.

    Now, of course, we need free speech to have true speech. After all, we can't have the truth without freedom to discuss and review all positions. Even science must allow for false hypotheses to be tried out before the true theory finally arises.
    Also, many sides speak some kernels of truth and some falsehoods; almost no side is totally true, and almost no side is totally false.

    Still, because the Enemy associates Free Speech with reckless freedom to say anything no matter how crazy or false, the dissident right must present itself as less about freedom to be crazy and wrong -- shotgunners drunk on moonshine -- and more about the commitment to speaking truth, esp truth to power, the REAL power -- riflemen aiming for the bull's eye. That way, the dissident right can present itself as upholders of truth against truth-molesters of PC. That's why we need TSM.

    Another thing. Even though I reject the notion of 'hate speech' in principle, the dissident right needs to use it selectively. Sometimes offense is best defense.
    When were Jews most supportive of free speech? When Jewish communists, radicals, and pornographers were censored and blacklisted, even prosecuted and jailed. People who feel no threat to their own Free Speech will try to shut down the free speech of Others. Most people don't see free speech as a universal principle but as tribal right. e.g. "Free speech for us Jews, no free speech for Palestinians of BDS and 'anti-Semites'."
    So, in order to make powerful Jews support free speech again, their speech must be threatened. This is where the dissident right should exploit the notion of 'hate speech'. Argue that Zionism is hate speech against Palestinians and must be silenced. Argue that globalism and 'liberal democracy' are crypto-hate-speech to foment Wars for Israel to kill millions of Muslims. Argue against L-DINO or Liberal Democracy in Name Only. What is called 'liberal democracy' is actually Tribal Oligarchy, or Tribal Oligarchy In Practice. And denounce homomaniacal talk as hate speech against decency, normality, morality, and science -- is a man's bunghole really the equivalent of a vagina?

    Only when their own speech is attacked as 'hate speech' will globo-homo forces show interest in free speech again.

    That’s a high-level argument that may be tactically effective among the cognitively gifted and intellectually rigorous, but among most people it will just devolve into “your true speech is fake news”, “no, your true speech is fake news”.

    To put the argument in bumper sticker format: Free speech is how we discover truth.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    That’s a high-level argument that may be tactically effective among the cognitively gifted and intellectually rigorous, but among most people it will just devolve into “your true speech is fake news”, “no, your true speech is fake news”.

    Maybe so, but it's more morally satisfying and righteous to champion truth and justice than the abstraction of freedom. For example, it feels better to argue, "Jewish power is real, and it is hurting Palestinians, an innocent people"

    than

    "I know Nazi-tards are mentally deranged morons who say the most awful things, BUT I defend their right to free speech on principle."

    Galileo was ultimately about True Speech. If his story was about defending the free speech principle of saying the Sun is really a giant orange and Earth is really a tomato, I don't think people would have remembered him or much cared. He stood for Truth.

    We need to put the other side on the moral defensive.

    I'm all for Free Speech, but defense of abstract principles of liberty just doesn't get the moral juices flowing as standing for truth and justice. Also, the BEST way to defend free speech is to make the POWERFUL people defend it. Jews got the power, so we have to put them on the moral defensive, not by defending the right of Neo-Nazis to praise Hitler or KKK morons to say ni**er but by denouncing Zionism as 'hate speech' that made Nakba Pogroms and IDF death squads possible. When people denounce Zionism as 'hate speech', Jews will support free speech all of a sudden.
    (Also use their terminology against them. Jews have often used 'pogroms' to mean gentile violence against Jews. But Jews committed pogroms against Palestinians, so add 'pogroms' to 'Nakba'. And liberal and leftist Jews often used the term 'right-wing death squads' during the Cold War; they never used 'left-wing death squads' even though there had been plenty of them in USSR, Mao's China, and Cambodia. But two can play that game. Whenever you mention the IDF, add 'death squads' to it. IDF death squads mow down innocent Palestinian women and children.)
    , @Stan d Mute

    To put the argument in bumper sticker format: Free speech is how we discover truth.
     
    But it’s not is it, not really. It’s adversity and survival. We all deny reality at some level because truth can be uncomfortable to accept. Maybe it’s denying that one’s wife is a royal mean cunt because the consequences of recognition would be monumentally difficult. Or maybe it’s denying that one’s kid is quite stupid or that one really is an unlikeable asshole because he refuses to filter or censor himself. But everyone does it to some extent no?

    Facing reality as it exists is perhaps the hardest thing for humans to do and we often go to outrageous lengths to deny it. Look at the costs we’ve incurred in avoiding the truth that Africans are a sub-species unready for civilizational modernity as just one example.

    Maybe we need AI to save us from our own weaknesses and sentimentalities.
  14. @216
    Sit back and grill meme empirically verified

    https://twitter.com/ZachG932/status/1104120448772640768

    White cultural imperialism.

    Your job is supposed to shut up and listen!

  15. @Audacious Epigone
    Relative to corporate America, I think it is. Groups like American Renaissance can't hold events in private commercial places, only in government ones. Same thing with Richard Spencer's thing.

    I do know about that, especially the A.R. Conferences in Tennessee. IMO, that will only last (unfortunately, of course) until some big-enough ctrl-left group gets wind of this. It’s not on the big radar screen yet. Mark my words, some group will bring the conferences up to some left-winger POS/POC in the US Feral Gov’t and have the Park Service “stand down”. I don’t like it, but I can envision this.

    As far as the corporate world goes, regarding the companies that don’t really have a dog in the fight, they are indeed a bunch of cowards. Peter Brimelow and his legal staff (Lydia) have been doing a bang-up job in getting compensation, but that still doesn’t bother the hotel/conference-center big-wigs enough to get the next one to think twice. It’d be nice to have a contract with a LOT of money involved. Maybe the whole thing could be a fund-raising effort and people would just have to meet on-line ;-} However, there’s nothing better than real face-to-face time.

    • Replies: @216
    The park in TN is a state park, not a National Park. I recall VDARE attempted to put a conference in a National Park, but discovered that the hotels in the park are owned by private contractors and thus able to discriminate. The TN facility is state government property, and the TN Attorney General has tried and failed to squeeze them out of it.

    Conferences are about socializing, which the courts and society are not sympathetic to protecting when it is supposed anti-social malcontents doing the socializing. I understand that the ADL/SPLC/PFAW are dishonest, but perhaps some of the organizations can avoid making negative generalizations about immutable characteristics and judging people as a class. That's the legalese that gets you the tag of "hate group". Why not try to at least comply with the letter and spirt of this "law" ? What exactly does a "non-hateful" white identity politics look like? I'd try to emulate Ernst Roets.
  16. @iffen
    You’re either a computer program, from another country, or a computer program from another country.

    AaronB who has stumbled upon a really nasty stash.

    Haha. AaronB sometimes writes OK stuff. I think he’s out of the country, so maybe doesn’t keep up with what’s really going on sometimes.

  17. 216 says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    Relative to corporate America, I think it is. Groups like American Renaissance can't hold events in private commercial places, only in government ones. Same thing with Richard Spencer's thing.

    As Starbucks is publicly traded, it would not surprise me if in the next quarterly earnings report that we see a sales miss or even a decline linked to Schultz’s potential run for the Presidency.

    The left’s activists are relentless as the survey data above indicates.

    Any national chain that granted AmRen the use of its site would face:
    -Real life targeted harassment, death threats and bomb threats called in.
    -A potential walkout by its non-white workers
    -Doxxing of management and employees not willing to walkout
    -Organized boycotts
    -Blue states and cities barring government travel in said chain
    -Potential rioting by Antifa, the site they use is in an inconvenient part of rural TN iirc
    -Financial deplatforming

    The thing is that the past two years of college campus riots has soured the public on free speech once they saw the security costs. Eventually the universities will find a judge that says that “unreasonable security costs” is grounds to bar a speaker from campus.

    If we value “One Milo” as the average cost of each controversial speaker, how many Milos would it take to bring universities/cities nationwide into a standstill? I think Berkeley was a seven figure cost, and Spencer in Florida was a six figure cost.

    Comparatively, deterring these events is accomplished mostly when leftist voluneers engaging in altruistic punishment doxx the attendees.

    Even long ago (2003) there was still serious pushback from the SPLC that such conferences should even exist. The word “violence” or “threat” is not found once, but they gleefully retort about some Canadian being convicted of hate speech violations.

    https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/paleoconservatives-decry-immigration

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    The thing is that the past two years of college campus riots has soured the public on free speech once they saw the security costs.
     
    Only because the administrations refuse to take the criminal threats seriously and deal with the malefactors with arrests and no-trespass orders.  They could put the leaders behind bars and prohibit the rest from coming within earshot for cheap, and it would only take 1 or 2 instances to veto the heckler's veto.

    The problem is that the administrations, from the university presidents on down, are traitors and need to be fired and kicked out of the country.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Defending free speech has costs. If we are collectively unwilling to pay those costs, we will indeed lose free speech.
  18. 216 says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    I do know about that, especially the A.R. Conferences in Tennessee. IMO, that will only last (unfortunately, of course) until some big-enough ctrl-left group gets wind of this. It's not on the big radar screen yet. Mark my words, some group will bring the conferences up to some left-winger POS/POC in the US Feral Gov't and have the Park Service "stand down". I don't like it, but I can envision this.

    As far as the corporate world goes, regarding the companies that don't really have a dog in the fight, they are indeed a bunch of cowards. Peter Brimelow and his legal staff (Lydia) have been doing a bang-up job in getting compensation, but that still doesn't bother the hotel/conference-center big-wigs enough to get the next one to think twice. It'd be nice to have a contract with a LOT of money involved. Maybe the whole thing could be a fund-raising effort and people would just have to meet on-line ;-} However, there's nothing better than real face-to-face time.

    The park in TN is a state park, not a National Park. I recall VDARE attempted to put a conference in a National Park, but discovered that the hotels in the park are owned by private contractors and thus able to discriminate. The TN facility is state government property, and the TN Attorney General has tried and failed to squeeze them out of it.

    Conferences are about socializing, which the courts and society are not sympathetic to protecting when it is supposed anti-social malcontents doing the socializing. I understand that the ADL/SPLC/PFAW are dishonest, but perhaps some of the organizations can avoid making negative generalizations about immutable characteristics and judging people as a class. That’s the legalese that gets you the tag of “hate group”. Why not try to at least comply with the letter and spirt of this “law” ? What exactly does a “non-hateful” white identity politics look like? I’d try to emulate Ernst Roets.

  19. Btw Audacious Epigone

    Forgot to post this in the Reuters thread, but i took the poll a few days ago and isolated it to even further to general regional/state breakdowns for the 18-29 demographic (lets call them all Gen Z here since some are almost 25). Went by disapproval instead of approval. Disapproval doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t vote for the party they’re identifying closest to but does show sentiment to the ideals of the POTUS. Judging by Louisiana’s white registrations by 2016 its highly unlikely we’ll actually see Gen Z having 43% voting Dem there…….cause skin-games matters, considerably more so in the dirty south.

    Note – College educated voters respond considerably higher to mainstream media polling, which causes some complications with weighting to education, as we’ve seen by the recent polling with the preposterous assertion that Florida has 51% college graduates. Polls will say Florida state’s white youth aren’t trending Republican despite the registration voter disc right beside me showing the opposite. Infact we’ve got evidence of a rather large drop in young-white GOP vote in Florida without Trump being present. Anyways onto the regularly scheduled conflict.

    White Women

    Massachusetts – 78%
    Connecticut – 74% – I’ve got a feeling the areas rising racial-diversity is going to switch this around, the area is going to go from very few non-white births a decade ago to 25-30% are Latino births alone now.
    Minnesota – 70% – Weird considering how the 2016/2018 mock elections show a very competitive state coming up
    Maryland – 70%
    Washington – 68%
    Kansas – 68% – I’m actually not surprised considering the college-education impact.
    Wisconsin – 68%
    Oregon – 67%
    New York – 67%
    Colorado – 65%
    Ohio – 64%
    Iowa – 64% – See Minnesota and Steve King’s performance with Gen Z
    Illinois – 64%
    New Jersey – 63%
    Michigan – 62%
    Pennsylvania – 60% – was actually surprised to see it this low on a mainstream poll and after the steller performance of the state’s Democrats in 2018
    Indiana – 60%
    Arizona – 60%
    California – 58% – This one really stood out to me!!!
    Missouri – 58%
    Virginia – 57% – Which just goes to show the impact 1/3rd of the state being NoVa does to the Republican chances
    Kentucky – 56% – Appalachian swing states make some amount of sense long-term for me if you know the history of the region, as the region gets more high-school educated/college-educated voters, expect higher turnouts and return of regional rainbow coalition socialist movements
    Utah – 55%
    Arkansas – 54% – Seen a few mock elections where Hillary did well in Arkansas, thought it was name recognition, might be something else.
    Oklahoma – 53%
    North Carolina – 53%
    South Carolina – 52%
    Tennessee – 52%
    Texas – 52% – urban/suburban white women of Texas have a sizable share of the vote to them, but losing them, and while the state slowly inches more non-white in voter registrations is a death sentence for the entire EC (reminder Arizona is still short of 35% of Gen Z voters being non-white in 2018, Texas had 71% white Gen Z vote in 2014 but Beto probably did a number on that in 2018)
    Florida – 51%
    Georgia – 46% – until the end times Georgia will be a white v black state, even if some urbanized college-edu whites are now Liberal-Democrats, and younger blacks are 20% Republican, we’re still going to get a white v black skin games state.
    Alabama – 43%
    Louisiana – 39%

    White Men

    Maryland – 65% – !
    Massachusetts – 60%
    Wisconsin – 54% – I wanna say this is a state where non-college white vote trended more Dem in 2018 than 2016, but we had some improvements with non-white voters. Spoiler we won the state because black turnout was pathetically low in 2016 compared to other years. Like a considerable drop-off in black turnout
    Minnesota – 54%
    Washington – 52%
    Michigan – 51%
    Ohio – 49% – Disappointing if true, but doubtful.
    Colorado – 48%
    Kentucky – 47%
    Illinois – 47%
    Arizona – 45%
    Missouri – 45%
    Pennsylvania – 45%
    Indiana – 43%
    North Carolina – 43%
    Utah – 42%
    Virginia – 42%
    Tennessee – 42% – matches a lot of mock-elections
    New Jersey – 41%
    New York – 40% – Seems white men in the Northeast are some of the most based, gotta feel bad
    Georgia – 38%

    Gen Z White Men disapproval of Trump by region

    Far-west – 48%
    Far-west (everything but Nevada/Oregon) – 52%
    Far-west (everything but Nevada/California) – 45%
    Far-west (everything but California/Oregon) – 48%

    (The mock election indicators of Nevada since the 90s have shown the state will become irreversibly Democrat despite us showing white-men rapprochement)

    Great-Lakes – 57%

    New-England – 59%
    New-England (everything but Rhode Island/Connecticut) – 58%
    New-England – Maine safer than New Hampshire and thats way safer than rest

    Plains – 53%
    Plains (everything but Iowa/Kansas) – 56%
    Plains (everything but Kansas/Missouri) – 55%
    Plains (everything but Iowa/Missouri) – 54%
    Plains Women (everything but Iowa/Kansas) – 68%
    Plains Women (everything but Kansas/Missouri) – 66%
    Plains Women (everything but Iowa/Missouri) – 64%

    Aka we’ve got a Kansas problem

    Rocky (everything but Utah/Idaho) – 47%
    Rocky (everything but Utah/Montana) – 49%

    Southeast – 40%
    Southeast (everything but Florida/Virginia) – 39%
    Southeast (everything but Florida/North Carolina) – 39%
    Southeast (everything but Florida/Georgia) – 37%
    Southeast (everything but Florida/ Kentucky/West Virginia) – 41%
    Southeast (everything but Florida/Alabama) – 35%
    Southeast (everything but Kentucky/West Virginia) – 46%
    Southeast (everything but North Carolina/West Virginia) – 43%
    Southeast (everything but North Carolina/Kentucky) – 44%
    Southeast (everything but North Carolina/Alabama) – 39%
    Southeast (everything but North Carolina/Virginia) – 43%
    Southeast (everything but North Carolina/Georgia) – 40%
    Southeast (everything but Georgia/Virginia) – 40%
    Southeast (everything but Alabama/Georgia) – 35%

    Southwest – 37%
    Southwest (everything but Ok/TX) – 36%
    Southwest (everything but TX/AZ) – 37%
    Southwest (everything but Texas/New Mexico) – 35%
    Southwest (everything but Arizona/New Mexico) – 44%
    Southwest (Everything but Arizona/Okla) – 42%

    Lumped in the Hispanic by sex together due to sample sizes, but the gender divided is evident here, like Texas Hispanic youth men being only 60% disapprove but young Hispanic women are 80% disapproval . I’ve already talked to Audacious epigone a bit about my thoughts on the future only swing state that’ll matter Texas

    Hispanic Gen Z disspaorval of Trump

    Florida – 70%
    Texas – 70%
    Arizona – 71%
    California – 75%
    Colorado – 75%

    Far West – 75%
    Great Lakes – 75%
    Mid-Atlantic – 70% – NY/PA – 71, NJ/PA – 70, NJ/NY – 72
    New England – 66%
    Plains – 70%
    Rocky – 70%
    Southeast – 65%
    Southwest – 72%

    Black youth Gen Z Opposed to Trump (tfw 20% GOP is now considered amazing)

    Virginia – 82% – you’d think it woulda been very low not the highest
    North Carolina – 82%
    Mississippi – 82%
    Georgia – 81%
    South Carolina – 80%
    Maryland – 79%
    Alabama – 75%
    Louisiana – 69%
    Tennessee – 68%

    Far West – 83%
    Far West (minus Washington) – 84%
    Far West (minus Oregon) – 83%
    Far West (minus Nevada) – 83%
    Far west (minus California) – 78%

    California’s blacks hate Trump, explains the open-border policies of the states black electorate (spoiler southern blacks more anti-immigration, have a few studies on it, if anyone wants)

    Great Lakes – 79%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Wisconsin/Michigan) – 79%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Wisconsin/Ohio) – 82%
    Great-Lakes (minus all but Wisconsin/Minnesota) – No-data
    Great-Lakes (minus all but Wisconsin/Indiana) – 77%
    Great-Lakes (minus all but Wisconsin/Illinois) – 74%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Minnesota/Ohio) – 85%
    Great-Lakes (minus all but Minnesota/Michigan) – 82%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Minnesota/Indiana) – No-data
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Minnesota/Illinois) – 76%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Ohio/Indiana) – 83%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Ohio/Illinois) – 80%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Ohio/Michigan) – 83%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Michigan/Indiana) – 80%

    Mid-Atlantic – 80%
    Mid-Atlantic (Minus Maryland, New York) – 84%
    Mid-Atlantic (Minus Maryland, New Jersey) – 79%
    Mid-Atlantic (Minus Maryland, DC, Delaware, New Jersey) – 79%
    Mid-Atlantic (Minus Maryland, DC, Delaware, New York) – 86%
    Mid-Atlantic (Minus Maryland, DC, Delaware, Pennsylvania) – 79%

    Surprised about New York

    New-England – 80%

    Plains – 80%
    Plains – (Minus North/South Dakota, kansas) – 79%
    Plains – (Minus North/South Dakota, Iowa) – 81%

    Rocky Mountains – Not Available

    Southeast – 77%
    Southeast (Minus everything but Arkansas, Florida, West Virginia, Kentucky) – 73%
    Southeast (minus everything but Florida, West Virginia, Kentucky) – 75%
    Southeast (Minus everything but Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky) – 71%
    Southeast (Just Florida/Virginia) – 75%

    So Florida blacks def lean more GOP

    Southwest – 78%

    We did ok with blacks in the governor race in Texas

    Black Men – 72%
    Far-west – No-data
    Great Lakes – 72%
    Mid-Atlantic – 75%
    New-England – No-Data
    Plains – No-data
    Rocky – No-data
    Southeast – 70%
    Southwest – No-data

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    College educated voters respond considerably higher to mainstream media polling
     
    Guess what I told Nielsen the last time they called?

    "Put me on your Do-Not-Call list."  <click!>
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Great data dump there, thanks.

    The filters are shortcuts, but users are able to specify exact age ranges if interested in isolating smaller ranges (ie 18-25). Just click an age filter and then reduce (or expand) the numbers in the URL.
  20. Thanks for the correction on TN state park vs. national park. It is kind of a unique situation, which is likely why they stick to the venue now (until it fails them – all it will take is some angry State Senator – such as the “lady” in Arkansas per Paul Kersey’s article today*). How can one comply with the letter of “hate law”? That’s just it, and why I can’t stand for Steve Sailer’s agreement with hate crimes and affirmative actions as legitimate law.

    It becomes rule of man, not rule of law, as hate is not defined by law and has no business in any serious Constitutional legislation that purports to serve due process. Hey, Jared Taylor seems a hell of a nice guy. The people at his conferences don’t rape, don’t hit people unless in self-defense, and don’t even yell. Yet, if they say what “the man” decides is hateful, well, it won’t be a legal conference anymore.

    .

    * I’d link to it, but I’ve had a problem with links to unz articles not staying links once you hit [PUBLISH] – kind a wierd, as I don’t know if it’s a bug or a feature.

    • Replies: @216

    How can one comply with the letter of “hate law”? That’s just it, and why I can’t stand for Steve Sailer’s agreement with hate crimes and affirmative actions as legitimate law.
     
    Jared Holt is the trial court. Potok and Beirich are the Appeals Court. Greenblatt is the Supreme Court.

    Like it or not, the hatewatchers are given some legal standing in US law enforcement, and are consulted by the big corporations. They have power, and we defy that at our peril.

    I don't know if you can actually comply or not. It's very much a Star Chamber. But it's worth a shot, we will only get immigration slashed when it is not viewed as hateful. Making arguments is not going to work. If the $PLC says to stop using "illegals", we should stop using it. We should aim for malicious compliance with their rules, where they make more errors like targeting Majid Nawaz.

    I guess there is a hint here:

    https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/center-immigration-studies

    circulating racist writers, while also associating with white nationalists
     
    Krikorian is being convicted for consanguinity. But what excuse does he have for not recognizing that certain people are verboten in polite society? The rules are biased, and non-transparent, but if you squint hard enough there is an outline. In spite of Krikorian's perception that he's a counter-signalling herbivore, he says too much rube bait.

    What I want to box the $PLC into saying is "No matter how non-toxic you are, your ideas alone will get you banned, mass immigration is unquestionable if you want to remain in polite society".

    That is clearly the esoteric message, but they aren't explicitly saying it. I think we can trigger this response if we become non-toxic.
  21. 216 says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    Thanks for the correction on TN state park vs. national park. It is kind of a unique situation, which is likely why they stick to the venue now (until it fails them - all it will take is some angry State Senator - such as the "lady" in Arkansas per Paul Kersey's article today*). How can one comply with the letter of "hate law"? That's just it, and why I can't stand for Steve Sailer's agreement with hate crimes and affirmative actions as legitimate law.

    It becomes rule of man, not rule of law, as hate is not defined by law and has no business in any serious Constitutional legislation that purports to serve due process. Hey, Jared Taylor seems a hell of a nice guy. The people at his conferences don't rape, don't hit people unless in self-defense, and don't even yell. Yet, if they say what "the man" decides is hateful, well, it won't be a legal conference anymore.

    .

    * I'd link to it, but I've had a problem with links to unz articles not staying links once you hit [PUBLISH] - kind a wierd, as I don't know if it's a bug or a feature.

    How can one comply with the letter of “hate law”? That’s just it, and why I can’t stand for Steve Sailer’s agreement with hate crimes and affirmative actions as legitimate law.

    Jared Holt is the trial court. Potok and Beirich are the Appeals Court. Greenblatt is the Supreme Court.

    Like it or not, the hatewatchers are given some legal standing in US law enforcement, and are consulted by the big corporations. They have power, and we defy that at our peril.

    I don’t know if you can actually comply or not. It’s very much a Star Chamber. But it’s worth a shot, we will only get immigration slashed when it is not viewed as hateful. Making arguments is not going to work. If the $PLC says to stop using “illegals”, we should stop using it. We should aim for malicious compliance with their rules, where they make more errors like targeting Majid Nawaz.

    I guess there is a hint here:

    https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/center-immigration-studies

    circulating racist writers, while also associating with white nationalists

    Krikorian is being convicted for consanguinity. But what excuse does he have for not recognizing that certain people are verboten in polite society? The rules are biased, and non-transparent, but if you squint hard enough there is an outline. In spite of Krikorian’s perception that he’s a counter-signalling herbivore, he says too much rube bait.

    What I want to box the $PLC into saying is “No matter how non-toxic you are, your ideas alone will get you banned, mass immigration is unquestionable if you want to remain in polite society”.

    That is clearly the esoteric message, but they aren’t explicitly saying it. I think we can trigger this response if we become non-toxic.

  22. Priss Factor [AKA "Asagirian"] says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone
    That's a high-level argument that may be tactically effective among the cognitively gifted and intellectually rigorous, but among most people it will just devolve into "your true speech is fake news", "no, your true speech is fake news".

    To put the argument in bumper sticker format: Free speech is how we discover truth.

    That’s a high-level argument that may be tactically effective among the cognitively gifted and intellectually rigorous, but among most people it will just devolve into “your true speech is fake news”, “no, your true speech is fake news”.

    Maybe so, but it’s more morally satisfying and righteous to champion truth and justice than the abstraction of freedom. For example, it feels better to argue, “Jewish power is real, and it is hurting Palestinians, an innocent people”

    than

    “I know Nazi-tards are mentally deranged morons who say the most awful things, BUT I defend their right to free speech on principle.”

    Galileo was ultimately about True Speech. If his story was about defending the free speech principle of saying the Sun is really a giant orange and Earth is really a tomato, I don’t think people would have remembered him or much cared. He stood for Truth.

    We need to put the other side on the moral defensive.

    I’m all for Free Speech, but defense of abstract principles of liberty just doesn’t get the moral juices flowing as standing for truth and justice. Also, the BEST way to defend free speech is to make the POWERFUL people defend it. Jews got the power, so we have to put them on the moral defensive, not by defending the right of Neo-Nazis to praise Hitler or KKK morons to say ni**er but by denouncing Zionism as ‘hate speech’ that made Nakba Pogroms and IDF death squads possible. When people denounce Zionism as ‘hate speech’, Jews will support free speech all of a sudden.
    (Also use their terminology against them. Jews have often used ‘pogroms’ to mean gentile violence against Jews. But Jews committed pogroms against Palestinians, so add ‘pogroms’ to ‘Nakba’. And liberal and leftist Jews often used the term ‘right-wing death squads’ during the Cold War; they never used ‘left-wing death squads’ even though there had been plenty of them in USSR, Mao’s China, and Cambodia. But two can play that game. Whenever you mention the IDF, add ‘death squads’ to it. IDF death squads mow down innocent Palestinian women and children.)

  23. Political correctness is insidious. I frequently hear people measuring harmless comments against it. I’m currently listening to a group of early 20 something ask if “cultural appropriation is ever ok?”. Supposedly a celebrity had a picture with an African child for charity and that was racist or something. This is so weird.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I'm not writing anything novel by suggesting the humorously absurd as the most effective (and safest) way to approach a situation like that: "No, it is never okay to have your picture taken with a black person, let alone a child!"
  24. I have noticed an increasing tendency on all sides of politics to simply deny truth that the speaker doesn’t want to deal with. You can throw any number of police statistics and hatefacts at the left and they will either deny it outright or announce that saying such things is “shitty” and leave it at that, as though that’s enough to invalidate the facts. You can point out to rightwingers that they are ignoring plain facts and making claims that sound good but are quite simply lies, and you will be ignored as though you never said a word. “True Speech” is a nonstarter in terms of effective tactics while this is going on.

    That’s not to say the truth should be ignored. It’s valuable. But (from a tactical perspective) it’s valuable because it is easier to fashion it into effective propaganda than when one starts with lies. The focus needs to be on the objectives and the results, not the principles underlying the methods.

  25. @216
    As Starbucks is publicly traded, it would not surprise me if in the next quarterly earnings report that we see a sales miss or even a decline linked to Schultz's potential run for the Presidency.

    The left's activists are relentless as the survey data above indicates.

    Any national chain that granted AmRen the use of its site would face:
    -Real life targeted harassment, death threats and bomb threats called in.
    -A potential walkout by its non-white workers
    -Doxxing of management and employees not willing to walkout
    -Organized boycotts
    -Blue states and cities barring government travel in said chain
    -Potential rioting by Antifa, the site they use is in an inconvenient part of rural TN iirc
    -Financial deplatforming

    The thing is that the past two years of college campus riots has soured the public on free speech once they saw the security costs. Eventually the universities will find a judge that says that "unreasonable security costs" is grounds to bar a speaker from campus.

    If we value "One Milo" as the average cost of each controversial speaker, how many Milos would it take to bring universities/cities nationwide into a standstill? I think Berkeley was a seven figure cost, and Spencer in Florida was a six figure cost.

    Comparatively, deterring these events is accomplished mostly when leftist voluneers engaging in altruistic punishment doxx the attendees.

    Even long ago (2003) there was still serious pushback from the SPLC that such conferences should even exist. The word "violence" or "threat" is not found once, but they gleefully retort about some Canadian being convicted of hate speech violations.

    https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/paleoconservatives-decry-immigration

    The thing is that the past two years of college campus riots has soured the public on free speech once they saw the security costs.

    Only because the administrations refuse to take the criminal threats seriously and deal with the malefactors with arrests and no-trespass orders.  They could put the leaders behind bars and prohibit the rest from coming within earshot for cheap, and it would only take 1 or 2 instances to veto the heckler’s veto.

    The problem is that the administrations, from the university presidents on down, are traitors and need to be fired and kicked out of the country.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Indeed. That the Trump Justice Department has totally dropped the ball on this is one of the more disappointing things about his presidency.
  26. @Oblivionrecurs
    Btw Audacious Epigone

    Forgot to post this in the Reuters thread, but i took the poll a few days ago and isolated it to even further to general regional/state breakdowns for the 18-29 demographic (lets call them all Gen Z here since some are almost 25). Went by disapproval instead of approval. Disapproval doesn't necessarily mean they won't vote for the party they're identifying closest to but does show sentiment to the ideals of the POTUS. Judging by Louisiana's white registrations by 2016 its highly unlikely we'll actually see Gen Z having 43% voting Dem there.......cause skin-games matters, considerably more so in the dirty south.

    Note - College educated voters respond considerably higher to mainstream media polling, which causes some complications with weighting to education, as we've seen by the recent polling with the preposterous assertion that Florida has 51% college graduates. Polls will say Florida state's white youth aren't trending Republican despite the registration voter disc right beside me showing the opposite. Infact we've got evidence of a rather large drop in young-white GOP vote in Florida without Trump being present. Anyways onto the regularly scheduled conflict.

    White Women

    Massachusetts - 78%
    Connecticut - 74% - I've got a feeling the areas rising racial-diversity is going to switch this around, the area is going to go from very few non-white births a decade ago to 25-30% are Latino births alone now.
    Minnesota - 70% - Weird considering how the 2016/2018 mock elections show a very competitive state coming up
    Maryland - 70%
    Washington - 68%
    Kansas - 68% - I'm actually not surprised considering the college-education impact.
    Wisconsin - 68%
    Oregon - 67%
    New York - 67%
    Colorado - 65%
    Ohio - 64%
    Iowa - 64% - See Minnesota and Steve King's performance with Gen Z
    Illinois - 64%
    New Jersey - 63%
    Michigan - 62%
    Pennsylvania - 60% - was actually surprised to see it this low on a mainstream poll and after the steller performance of the state's Democrats in 2018
    Indiana - 60%
    Arizona - 60%
    California - 58% - This one really stood out to me!!!
    Missouri - 58%
    Virginia - 57% - Which just goes to show the impact 1/3rd of the state being NoVa does to the Republican chances
    Kentucky - 56% - Appalachian swing states make some amount of sense long-term for me if you know the history of the region, as the region gets more high-school educated/college-educated voters, expect higher turnouts and return of regional rainbow coalition socialist movements
    Utah - 55%
    Arkansas - 54% - Seen a few mock elections where Hillary did well in Arkansas, thought it was name recognition, might be something else.
    Oklahoma - 53%
    North Carolina - 53%
    South Carolina - 52%
    Tennessee - 52%
    Texas - 52% - urban/suburban white women of Texas have a sizable share of the vote to them, but losing them, and while the state slowly inches more non-white in voter registrations is a death sentence for the entire EC (reminder Arizona is still short of 35% of Gen Z voters being non-white in 2018, Texas had 71% white Gen Z vote in 2014 but Beto probably did a number on that in 2018)
    Florida - 51%
    Georgia - 46% - until the end times Georgia will be a white v black state, even if some urbanized college-edu whites are now Liberal-Democrats, and younger blacks are 20% Republican, we're still going to get a white v black skin games state.
    Alabama - 43%
    Louisiana - 39%

    White Men

    Maryland - 65% - !
    Massachusetts - 60%
    Wisconsin - 54% - I wanna say this is a state where non-college white vote trended more Dem in 2018 than 2016, but we had some improvements with non-white voters. Spoiler we won the state because black turnout was pathetically low in 2016 compared to other years. Like a considerable drop-off in black turnout
    Minnesota - 54%
    Washington - 52%
    Michigan - 51%
    Ohio - 49% - Disappointing if true, but doubtful.
    Colorado - 48%
    Kentucky - 47%
    Illinois - 47%
    Arizona - 45%
    Missouri - 45%
    Pennsylvania - 45%
    Indiana - 43%
    North Carolina - 43%
    Utah - 42%
    Virginia - 42%
    Tennessee - 42% - matches a lot of mock-elections
    New Jersey - 41%
    New York - 40% - Seems white men in the Northeast are some of the most based, gotta feel bad
    Georgia - 38%

    Gen Z White Men disapproval of Trump by region

    Far-west - 48%
    Far-west (everything but Nevada/Oregon) - 52%
    Far-west (everything but Nevada/California) - 45%
    Far-west (everything but California/Oregon) - 48%

    (The mock election indicators of Nevada since the 90s have shown the state will become irreversibly Democrat despite us showing white-men rapprochement)

    Great-Lakes - 57%

    New-England - 59%
    New-England (everything but Rhode Island/Connecticut) - 58%
    New-England - Maine safer than New Hampshire and thats way safer than rest

    Plains - 53%
    Plains (everything but Iowa/Kansas) - 56%
    Plains (everything but Kansas/Missouri) - 55%
    Plains (everything but Iowa/Missouri) - 54%
    Plains Women (everything but Iowa/Kansas) - 68%
    Plains Women (everything but Kansas/Missouri) - 66%
    Plains Women (everything but Iowa/Missouri) - 64%

    Aka we've got a Kansas problem


    Rocky (everything but Utah/Idaho) - 47%
    Rocky (everything but Utah/Montana) - 49%


    Southeast - 40%
    Southeast (everything but Florida/Virginia) - 39%
    Southeast (everything but Florida/North Carolina) - 39%
    Southeast (everything but Florida/Georgia) - 37%
    Southeast (everything but Florida/ Kentucky/West Virginia) - 41%
    Southeast (everything but Florida/Alabama) - 35%
    Southeast (everything but Kentucky/West Virginia) - 46%
    Southeast (everything but North Carolina/West Virginia) - 43%
    Southeast (everything but North Carolina/Kentucky) - 44%
    Southeast (everything but North Carolina/Alabama) - 39%
    Southeast (everything but North Carolina/Virginia) - 43%
    Southeast (everything but North Carolina/Georgia) - 40%
    Southeast (everything but Georgia/Virginia) - 40%
    Southeast (everything but Alabama/Georgia) - 35%

    Southwest - 37%
    Southwest (everything but Ok/TX) - 36%
    Southwest (everything but TX/AZ) - 37%
    Southwest (everything but Texas/New Mexico) - 35%
    Southwest (everything but Arizona/New Mexico) - 44%
    Southwest (Everything but Arizona/Okla) - 42%

    Lumped in the Hispanic by sex together due to sample sizes, but the gender divided is evident here, like Texas Hispanic youth men being only 60% disapprove but young Hispanic women are 80% disapproval . I've already talked to Audacious epigone a bit about my thoughts on the future only swing state that'll matter Texas

    Hispanic Gen Z disspaorval of Trump

    Florida - 70%
    Texas - 70%
    Arizona - 71%
    California - 75%
    Colorado - 75%

    Far West - 75%
    Great Lakes - 75%
    Mid-Atlantic - 70% - NY/PA - 71, NJ/PA - 70, NJ/NY - 72
    New England - 66%
    Plains - 70%
    Rocky - 70%
    Southeast - 65%
    Southwest - 72%


    Black youth Gen Z Opposed to Trump (tfw 20% GOP is now considered amazing)

    Virginia - 82% - you'd think it woulda been very low not the highest
    North Carolina - 82%
    Mississippi - 82%
    Georgia - 81%
    South Carolina - 80%
    Maryland - 79%
    Alabama - 75%
    Louisiana - 69%
    Tennessee - 68%

    Far West - 83%
    Far West (minus Washington) - 84%
    Far West (minus Oregon) - 83%
    Far West (minus Nevada) - 83%
    Far west (minus California) - 78%

    California's blacks hate Trump, explains the open-border policies of the states black electorate (spoiler southern blacks more anti-immigration, have a few studies on it, if anyone wants)

    Great Lakes - 79%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Wisconsin/Michigan) - 79%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Wisconsin/Ohio) - 82%
    Great-Lakes (minus all but Wisconsin/Minnesota) - No-data
    Great-Lakes (minus all but Wisconsin/Indiana) - 77%
    Great-Lakes (minus all but Wisconsin/Illinois) - 74%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Minnesota/Ohio) - 85%
    Great-Lakes (minus all but Minnesota/Michigan) - 82%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Minnesota/Indiana) - No-data
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Minnesota/Illinois) - 76%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Ohio/Indiana) - 83%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Ohio/Illinois) - 80%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Ohio/Michigan) - 83%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Michigan/Indiana) - 80%

    Mid-Atlantic - 80%
    Mid-Atlantic (Minus Maryland, New York) - 84%
    Mid-Atlantic (Minus Maryland, New Jersey) - 79%
    Mid-Atlantic (Minus Maryland, DC, Delaware, New Jersey) - 79%
    Mid-Atlantic (Minus Maryland, DC, Delaware, New York) - 86%
    Mid-Atlantic (Minus Maryland, DC, Delaware, Pennsylvania) - 79%

    Surprised about New York

    New-England - 80%

    Plains - 80%
    Plains - (Minus North/South Dakota, kansas) - 79%
    Plains - (Minus North/South Dakota, Iowa) - 81%

    Rocky Mountains - Not Available

    Southeast - 77%
    Southeast (Minus everything but Arkansas, Florida, West Virginia, Kentucky) - 73%
    Southeast (minus everything but Florida, West Virginia, Kentucky) - 75%
    Southeast (Minus everything but Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky) - 71%
    Southeast (Just Florida/Virginia) - 75%

    So Florida blacks def lean more GOP

    Southwest - 78%

    We did ok with blacks in the governor race in Texas


    Black Men - 72%
    Far-west - No-data
    Great Lakes - 72%
    Mid-Atlantic - 75%
    New-England - No-Data
    Plains - No-data
    Rocky - No-data
    Southeast - 70%
    Southwest - No-data

    College educated voters respond considerably higher to mainstream media polling

    Guess what I told Nielsen the last time they called?

    [MORE]

    “Put me on your Do-Not-Call list.”  <click!>

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I was glad to fill out their weekly TV diary, for which they send you a thank-you note with 2 crisp dollar bills in it (don't spend it all in one place!)

    I put in a token 5 minutes every 12 hours, but somewhat randomly, for turning the TV on to take a look at the weather, but otherwise the entire week had big X's for "TV was off". It's all true except turning it on for the weather. Hell, it's on your phone.

    Felt good, man.
  27. Real time evidence that conservatives are stupid and deserve to be replaced

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Heh, that's a twofer. If "nearly 5-in-10" voters are voting against me in the election--GREAT, I win!

    The disdain for one of the few remaining institutions that protect the interests of WCWs is even dumber, of course.
  28. “Today, porn is so ubiquitous no one notices.”

    Yeah, porn. I’m close to a free speech absolutist, and believe there is a place for erotica in art and in some segments of culture. But I took a peek at Pornhub a few months back to see what’s new in the genre since the 1990s (I’m an aging Xer). It was a depressing and brief experience. The female performers all appeared to be below the age of consent. And a lot of the sexual acts looked like rape. Any dude who gets a rise from that miasma of misery should seek help. I remember reading a Chris Hedges article about the porn industry in which he claimed that the vast majority of porn performers, male and female, suffered some form of sexual abuse in childhood. And the porn industry sucks in these broken humans and continues their torment. Sites like Pornhub are profiting from their disintegration. It’s that simple.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  29. ” I’m close to a free speech absolutist, and believe there is a place for erotica in art and in some segments of culture. ”

    I consider myself to be the same – but I don’t categorize pornography as a free speech issue, constitutionally speaking. That the courts have seen fit to do so is just another abuse, from a very long list, that they have laid on the American people.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    Porn isn’t a free speech issue but neither does the Constitution permit federal regulation of sex. It is like the personal decision whether to imbibe alcohol or drugs, a matter of individual sovereignty. The Courts stuck it under the 1st because they refuse to concede the limits placed on government authority more broadly (ie the war on drugs).

    Why is it so difficult for people to accept that we are free to fuck up our lives in any way we choose and that it isn’t anyone else’s business until we infringe on their rights to do the same? At that point, we are justified in controlling or punishing the behavior, but otherwise if you want to inject yourself with heroin while watching interracial porn until you die, go for it - we are all much better off with you removing yourself from the gene pool.
  30. anon[324] • Disclaimer says:

    Google’s Dragonfly is R&D for implementing such a system here. Watch for it.

    “Amazon’s billionaire founder, Jeff Bezos, played host to Defense Secretary James Mattis today during the Pentagon chief’s swing through high-tech hot spots (and military facilities) on the West Coast.

    ‘A pleasure to host #SecDef James Mattis at Amazon HQ in Seattle today,’ Bezos wrote in a tweet.

    The subject of the Pentagon chief’s chat with the world’s third-richest person wasn’t disclosed, but one of the reasons for this week’s Western trip was to meet with tech leaders. In addition to Amazon, Mattis is due to visit Google’s main campus as well as Defense Innovation Unit-Experimental, or DIUx, both in Silicon Valley.”

    https://www.geekwire.com/2017/pentagon-chief-james-mattis-meets-amazons-jeff-bezos-west-coast-tech-sub-tour/

  31. Anon[130] • Disclaimer says:

    “Only when their own speech is attacked as ‘hate speech’ will globo-homo forces show interest in free speech again.”

    The problem with free speech is that no one really believes in it, despite what they may say publicly. People will only support it as long as it benefits them personally or their associated group. This worked well for a few hundred years because American power rested predominantly in the hands of a single race of people which, for the most part, all shared similar values and social norms. Free speech was an intragroup phenomenon among related peoples with similar outlooks. However, the free speech system in the US has now devolved into open oppression as one side has gained access to nearly all the tools of repression (the media, the government, the banks, the police, the military, etc). They now use them to silence their opponent’s speech – their own speech preserved and their enemy’s speech crushed beneath them. This is the eventual fate of any society which is not held together through common bonds. Over time, one side – be it a race or a social group or a social class – will gain unchecked access to the levers of power and use them to repress their competition.

    My suggestion: secede and form a new government with a new constitution that outlaws certain types of divisive speech while allowing for broad speech freedoms elsewhere.

    For example, my constitution would be very detailed. It would not in any way be left up to the interpretation of activist judges through vague language; detailed language and examples would be provided, along with a mechanism short-circuiting judicial activism (easy way: require unanimous opinions similar to unanimous jury verdicts). This constitution would outlaw, and proscribe penalties for, white self-hate, dramatically strengthen libel and slander laws to put SJW social media activists out of order, prohibit media concentration into the hands of a few wealthy liberals, prohibit holocaust museums, regulate leftist social media, ban any speech or activity construed as encouraging white guilt, rewrite history books to tell the truth about many historical events, require monuments to our civilization to be erected nation-wide, outlaw divisive history months and other celebrations, outlaw diversity training, strictly regulate HR departments, enshrine our culture in law and practice everywhere, ban criticisms of Columbus and other historical figures as they pertain to white guilt, define any attack on whites based on history or affiliation as hate speech (a felony), heavily regulate corporate donations to political groups (every donation must be public record and limited in scope), ban groups like the ADL and SPLC, etc.

    You’ll notice that no stance on various economic and political dogmas is mentioned, so there is a very wide range of permissible speech possible. The point is that we have a very strict and very detailed constitution that puts white guilt and white self-hate down for good by preventing the self-destructive left from ever again gaining power (and through differential birthrates, they’ll eventually be totally removed from the population). Have a problem with this? You shouldn’t because this is exactly what the left has done to you. They’ve all but outlawed speech they don’t like for the right, including now banning books from Amazon. Check out the actions of the SPLC if you need further examples; their stated goal is to “destroy” organizations that say things they don’t like. So, this system is definitely workable. Other first world nations use it just fine against their enemies. What stops us from using it in our own independent country against ours?

    Maybe someday someone will start a community project, maybe an open thread or a wiki, where people can submit their ideas for a new constitution that implements the lessons learned over the last 50 odd years. I have lots more suggestions, if you’re interested. I’m sure lots of other people do, too.

    “Like it or not, the hatewatchers are given some legal standing in US law enforcement, and are consulted by the big corporations. They have power, and we defy that at our peril.”

    Secede and end their power. Ban their groups and put their members on trial for, ironically, hate speech. Same for collaborators.

    “we will only get immigration slashed when it is not viewed as hateful.”

    Which means never because they’ll never allow it to be viewed in any other way.

    “If the $PLC says to stop using “illegals”, we should stop using it. We should aim for malicious compliance with their rules, where they make more errors like targeting Majid Nawaz.”

    Nonsense. We should never let an enemy define acceptable speech. We should refuse and counter by smearing them with various names (unpatriotic, liberal, democrat, racist, fascist, fake news, dishonest…) while pushing to have state and local governments regulate their activities out of existence; regulate their finances, make their donors public, ostracize their employees, pass masking laws forcing leftist creeps to doxx themselves when they protest – make this a political message for election seasons, guaranteeing safety within a larger, partisan, group. Your suggestion, like most suggestions I see on the right, is hopelessly unworkable (SPLC finances greatly exceed the payout in the Nawaz case, so their error in that case was very minor). Additionally, my suggestion of a secession effort would further hamper the SPLC’s ability to attack our speech because we could frame their efforts as bigoted attacks against our ethnic group, riling up conservatives through appeals to emotion; but this can only realistically be done in a separatist movement.

    Malicious compliance is compliance nonetheless, and it eventually leads to a very dark place – complete subjugation. What, you don’t really think a few minor legal missteps here and there will bring that organization – a front for the US secret police forces – down, do you? Don’t kid yourself.

    “If assorted Alt-Right individuals actually wanted to hurt the Jews where it counts, they’d disguise themselves as leftists and become entryists in the BDS movement.”

    True, but the alt-right is notoriously disorganized and seemingly incapable of such underhanded machinations. I think it would be more effective to goad the radical left into supporting BDS, instead.

    “That is clearly the esoteric message, but they aren’t explicitly saying it. I think we can trigger this response if we become non-toxic.”

    To what end? How do you imagine that realistically playing out? You don’t really think that will change the behavior of a group of fanatics, do you? The ADL, for example, was exposed for nefarious activities back in the 90s (building intelligence files on people by going through their garbage, if I recall), and now they are stronger than ever. Same with the SPLC. The Nawaz error was just the last in a long series of errors they’ve made with no consequence: inspiring a terrorist attack with one of their hate maps, providing practice targets depicting conservative whites to the federal government, etc. No, that’s not going to stop them. They will be stopped when we alter the power structure such that we are in charge and make all the rules. That means a separate country.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The problem with free speech is that no one really believes in it, despite what they may say publicly. People will only support it as long as it benefits them personally or their associated group.
     
    I absolutely believe in free speech, and I doubt we would have arrived at this pass in our civilization but for the repression (albeit unofficial) of Whites and males, and most especially White males.
  32. @216
    The bottom text on that meme is unhelpful. That ordinary gets ripped as a "cursed boomer image"

    I see that you like walls of text. But most people don't.

    The top line is very good, "Jews treat Whites like Palestinians" forces a left-wing BDS supporter to divide by zero. If assorted Alt-Right individuals actually wanted to hurt the Jews where it counts, they'd disguise themselves as leftists and become entryists in the BDS movement.

    If assorted Alt-Right individuals actually wanted to hurt the Jews where it counts, they’d disguise themselves as leftists and become entryists in the BDS movement.

    It is highly tempting to “give them exactly what they ask for – good and hard” to “teach them a lesson.”

    The central problem is that they are as children. Assuming that they do get what they ask for and that it hurts them immensely, they will deflect and deny blame for the outcome. We see this with socialist “intellectuals” who insist that it’s just never been done properly before.

    What we need to recognize is that even very bright people can be as children. Just imagine a very bright kid and you’re on track. “Words can hurt” means “truth can hurt” which means that one lacks mental maturity to accept reality or nature and face it squarely to deal with the consequences as an adult.

    We see today the result of infantilization on civilizational scale. Reduce this to the micro scale and it’s obvious as in a family I know that raised three children according to the whims and demands of the one retarded (IQ 30 Down Syndrome) child with the predictable results on the two normal children. Of this family of five, only one drew the correct conclusion and the others, parents and siblings, all live in complete denial of reality in nearly every aspect of their lives despite being of very high intelligence. In other words, scaling back up, we live under rule of retards and pretend that the problems are external and beyond our ability to identify or control at root. Civilizationally we exist as a family led by bright children pretending that truth doesn’t exist or matter following the retard who cries loudest.

    This is enabled by our prosperity and I see no way for it to change without facing an existential crisis where our survival clearly depends on an ability for mature thinkers to assert control and recognition of this by the immature children who will otherwise perish. There just aren’t any deleterious consequences or they’re survivable without abandoning the childish fantasies and blame deflection.

  33. @Audacious Epigone
    That's a high-level argument that may be tactically effective among the cognitively gifted and intellectually rigorous, but among most people it will just devolve into "your true speech is fake news", "no, your true speech is fake news".

    To put the argument in bumper sticker format: Free speech is how we discover truth.

    To put the argument in bumper sticker format: Free speech is how we discover truth.

    But it’s not is it, not really. It’s adversity and survival. We all deny reality at some level because truth can be uncomfortable to accept. Maybe it’s denying that one’s wife is a royal mean cunt because the consequences of recognition would be monumentally difficult. Or maybe it’s denying that one’s kid is quite stupid or that one really is an unlikeable asshole because he refuses to filter or censor himself. But everyone does it to some extent no?

    Facing reality as it exists is perhaps the hardest thing for humans to do and we often go to outrageous lengths to deny it. Look at the costs we’ve incurred in avoiding the truth that Africans are a sub-species unready for civilizational modernity as just one example.

    Maybe we need AI to save us from our own weaknesses and sentimentalities.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Then how do we discover truth if not by open inquiry?
  34. @MikeatMikedotMike
    " I’m close to a free speech absolutist, and believe there is a place for erotica in art and in some segments of culture. "

    I consider myself to be the same - but I don't categorize pornography as a free speech issue, constitutionally speaking. That the courts have seen fit to do so is just another abuse, from a very long list, that they have laid on the American people.

    Porn isn’t a free speech issue but neither does the Constitution permit federal regulation of sex. It is like the personal decision whether to imbibe alcohol or drugs, a matter of individual sovereignty. The Courts stuck it under the 1st because they refuse to concede the limits placed on government authority more broadly (ie the war on drugs).

    Why is it so difficult for people to accept that we are free to fuck up our lives in any way we choose and that it isn’t anyone else’s business until we infringe on their rights to do the same? At that point, we are justified in controlling or punishing the behavior, but otherwise if you want to inject yourself with heroin while watching interracial porn until you die, go for it – we are all much better off with you removing yourself from the gene pool.

    • Agree: MikeatMikedotMike
    • Replies: @Rosie

    At that point, we are justified in controlling or punishing the behavior, but otherwise if you want to inject yourself with heroin while watching interracial porn until you die, go for it – we are all much better off with you removing yourself from the gene pool.
     
    The problem is that such behavior harms not only oneself, but others as well. Most obviously, heroin addicts have children, spouses, aging parents, etc. We do not have the right, though we may have the power, to destroy ourselves.
  35. Thanks for the great link to Lind.

    The big eye-opener for me was that the ” “polymorphous perversity,”” that we are enjoying at the moment was a project begun in the 1930’s.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  36. anon[238] • Disclaimer says:

    “The left’s activists are relentless as the survey data above indicates.”

    The good news is that it will pass, eventually. The radical left has a birthrate of around 1.4 and falling. When interracial marriages are taken into account, that figure could fall to as low as 1.2 (but probably a little higher as not all marriages produce offspring). These people are removing themselves from the population at a rate of about 30-40% per generation.

  37. @Stan d Mute
    Porn isn’t a free speech issue but neither does the Constitution permit federal regulation of sex. It is like the personal decision whether to imbibe alcohol or drugs, a matter of individual sovereignty. The Courts stuck it under the 1st because they refuse to concede the limits placed on government authority more broadly (ie the war on drugs).

    Why is it so difficult for people to accept that we are free to fuck up our lives in any way we choose and that it isn’t anyone else’s business until we infringe on their rights to do the same? At that point, we are justified in controlling or punishing the behavior, but otherwise if you want to inject yourself with heroin while watching interracial porn until you die, go for it - we are all much better off with you removing yourself from the gene pool.

    At that point, we are justified in controlling or punishing the behavior, but otherwise if you want to inject yourself with heroin while watching interracial porn until you die, go for it – we are all much better off with you removing yourself from the gene pool.

    The problem is that such behavior harms not only oneself, but others as well. Most obviously, heroin addicts have children, spouses, aging parents, etc. We do not have the right, though we may have the power, to destroy ourselves.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    If one hasn’t the right to destroy oneself, then one has no rights whatsoever. What we lack, within a framework of a free society, is the right to destroy others absent justification. There is a word for those without the right to self-terminate: “slave”
  38. @Anon
    “Only when their own speech is attacked as ‘hate speech’ will globo-homo forces show interest in free speech again.”

    The problem with free speech is that no one really believes in it, despite what they may say publicly. People will only support it as long as it benefits them personally or their associated group. This worked well for a few hundred years because American power rested predominantly in the hands of a single race of people which, for the most part, all shared similar values and social norms. Free speech was an intragroup phenomenon among related peoples with similar outlooks. However, the free speech system in the US has now devolved into open oppression as one side has gained access to nearly all the tools of repression (the media, the government, the banks, the police, the military, etc). They now use them to silence their opponent’s speech – their own speech preserved and their enemy's speech crushed beneath them. This is the eventual fate of any society which is not held together through common bonds. Over time, one side – be it a race or a social group or a social class – will gain unchecked access to the levers of power and use them to repress their competition.

    My suggestion: secede and form a new government with a new constitution that outlaws certain types of divisive speech while allowing for broad speech freedoms elsewhere.

    For example, my constitution would be very detailed. It would not in any way be left up to the interpretation of activist judges through vague language; detailed language and examples would be provided, along with a mechanism short-circuiting judicial activism (easy way: require unanimous opinions similar to unanimous jury verdicts). This constitution would outlaw, and proscribe penalties for, white self-hate, dramatically strengthen libel and slander laws to put SJW social media activists out of order, prohibit media concentration into the hands of a few wealthy liberals, prohibit holocaust museums, regulate leftist social media, ban any speech or activity construed as encouraging white guilt, rewrite history books to tell the truth about many historical events, require monuments to our civilization to be erected nation-wide, outlaw divisive history months and other celebrations, outlaw diversity training, strictly regulate HR departments, enshrine our culture in law and practice everywhere, ban criticisms of Columbus and other historical figures as they pertain to white guilt, define any attack on whites based on history or affiliation as hate speech (a felony), heavily regulate corporate donations to political groups (every donation must be public record and limited in scope), ban groups like the ADL and SPLC, etc.

    You’ll notice that no stance on various economic and political dogmas is mentioned, so there is a very wide range of permissible speech possible. The point is that we have a very strict and very detailed constitution that puts white guilt and white self-hate down for good by preventing the self-destructive left from ever again gaining power (and through differential birthrates, they’ll eventually be totally removed from the population). Have a problem with this? You shouldn’t because this is exactly what the left has done to you. They’ve all but outlawed speech they don’t like for the right, including now banning books from Amazon. Check out the actions of the SPLC if you need further examples; their stated goal is to “destroy” organizations that say things they don’t like. So, this system is definitely workable. Other first world nations use it just fine against their enemies. What stops us from using it in our own independent country against ours?

    Maybe someday someone will start a community project, maybe an open thread or a wiki, where people can submit their ideas for a new constitution that implements the lessons learned over the last 50 odd years. I have lots more suggestions, if you’re interested. I’m sure lots of other people do, too.

    “Like it or not, the hatewatchers are given some legal standing in US law enforcement, and are consulted by the big corporations. They have power, and we defy that at our peril.”

    Secede and end their power. Ban their groups and put their members on trial for, ironically, hate speech. Same for collaborators.

    “we will only get immigration slashed when it is not viewed as hateful.”

    Which means never because they’ll never allow it to be viewed in any other way.

    “If the $PLC says to stop using “illegals”, we should stop using it. We should aim for malicious compliance with their rules, where they make more errors like targeting Majid Nawaz.”

    Nonsense. We should never let an enemy define acceptable speech. We should refuse and counter by smearing them with various names (unpatriotic, liberal, democrat, racist, fascist, fake news, dishonest…) while pushing to have state and local governments regulate their activities out of existence; regulate their finances, make their donors public, ostracize their employees, pass masking laws forcing leftist creeps to doxx themselves when they protest – make this a political message for election seasons, guaranteeing safety within a larger, partisan, group. Your suggestion, like most suggestions I see on the right, is hopelessly unworkable (SPLC finances greatly exceed the payout in the Nawaz case, so their error in that case was very minor). Additionally, my suggestion of a secession effort would further hamper the SPLC’s ability to attack our speech because we could frame their efforts as bigoted attacks against our ethnic group, riling up conservatives through appeals to emotion; but this can only realistically be done in a separatist movement.

    Malicious compliance is compliance nonetheless, and it eventually leads to a very dark place – complete subjugation. What, you don’t really think a few minor legal missteps here and there will bring that organization – a front for the US secret police forces – down, do you? Don't kid yourself.

    “If assorted Alt-Right individuals actually wanted to hurt the Jews where it counts, they’d disguise themselves as leftists and become entryists in the BDS movement.”

    True, but the alt-right is notoriously disorganized and seemingly incapable of such underhanded machinations. I think it would be more effective to goad the radical left into supporting BDS, instead.

    "That is clearly the esoteric message, but they aren’t explicitly saying it. I think we can trigger this response if we become non-toxic."

    To what end? How do you imagine that realistically playing out? You don't really think that will change the behavior of a group of fanatics, do you? The ADL, for example, was exposed for nefarious activities back in the 90s (building intelligence files on people by going through their garbage, if I recall), and now they are stronger than ever. Same with the SPLC. The Nawaz error was just the last in a long series of errors they've made with no consequence: inspiring a terrorist attack with one of their hate maps, providing practice targets depicting conservative whites to the federal government, etc. No, that's not going to stop them. They will be stopped when we alter the power structure such that we are in charge and make all the rules. That means a separate country.

    The problem with free speech is that no one really believes in it, despite what they may say publicly. People will only support it as long as it benefits them personally or their associated group.

    I absolutely believe in free speech, and I doubt we would have arrived at this pass in our civilization but for the repression (albeit unofficial) of Whites and males, and most especially White males.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  39. @Rosie

    At that point, we are justified in controlling or punishing the behavior, but otherwise if you want to inject yourself with heroin while watching interracial porn until you die, go for it – we are all much better off with you removing yourself from the gene pool.
     
    The problem is that such behavior harms not only oneself, but others as well. Most obviously, heroin addicts have children, spouses, aging parents, etc. We do not have the right, though we may have the power, to destroy ourselves.

    If one hasn’t the right to destroy oneself, then one has no rights whatsoever. What we lack, within a framework of a free society, is the right to destroy others absent justification. There is a word for those without the right to self-terminate: “slave”

    • Disagree: Rosie
  40. @Mr. Rational

    College educated voters respond considerably higher to mainstream media polling
     
    Guess what I told Nielsen the last time they called?

    "Put me on your Do-Not-Call list."  <click!>

    I was glad to fill out their weekly TV diary, for which they send you a thank-you note with 2 crisp dollar bills in it (don’t spend it all in one place!)

    I put in a token 5 minutes every 12 hours, but somewhat randomly, for turning the TV on to take a look at the weather, but otherwise the entire week had big X’s for “TV was off”. It’s all true except turning it on for the weather. Hell, it’s on your phone.

    Felt good, man.

  41. @216
    As Starbucks is publicly traded, it would not surprise me if in the next quarterly earnings report that we see a sales miss or even a decline linked to Schultz's potential run for the Presidency.

    The left's activists are relentless as the survey data above indicates.

    Any national chain that granted AmRen the use of its site would face:
    -Real life targeted harassment, death threats and bomb threats called in.
    -A potential walkout by its non-white workers
    -Doxxing of management and employees not willing to walkout
    -Organized boycotts
    -Blue states and cities barring government travel in said chain
    -Potential rioting by Antifa, the site they use is in an inconvenient part of rural TN iirc
    -Financial deplatforming

    The thing is that the past two years of college campus riots has soured the public on free speech once they saw the security costs. Eventually the universities will find a judge that says that "unreasonable security costs" is grounds to bar a speaker from campus.

    If we value "One Milo" as the average cost of each controversial speaker, how many Milos would it take to bring universities/cities nationwide into a standstill? I think Berkeley was a seven figure cost, and Spencer in Florida was a six figure cost.

    Comparatively, deterring these events is accomplished mostly when leftist voluneers engaging in altruistic punishment doxx the attendees.

    Even long ago (2003) there was still serious pushback from the SPLC that such conferences should even exist. The word "violence" or "threat" is not found once, but they gleefully retort about some Canadian being convicted of hate speech violations.

    https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/paleoconservatives-decry-immigration

    Defending free speech has costs. If we are collectively unwilling to pay those costs, we will indeed lose free speech.

  42. @Oblivionrecurs
    Btw Audacious Epigone

    Forgot to post this in the Reuters thread, but i took the poll a few days ago and isolated it to even further to general regional/state breakdowns for the 18-29 demographic (lets call them all Gen Z here since some are almost 25). Went by disapproval instead of approval. Disapproval doesn't necessarily mean they won't vote for the party they're identifying closest to but does show sentiment to the ideals of the POTUS. Judging by Louisiana's white registrations by 2016 its highly unlikely we'll actually see Gen Z having 43% voting Dem there.......cause skin-games matters, considerably more so in the dirty south.

    Note - College educated voters respond considerably higher to mainstream media polling, which causes some complications with weighting to education, as we've seen by the recent polling with the preposterous assertion that Florida has 51% college graduates. Polls will say Florida state's white youth aren't trending Republican despite the registration voter disc right beside me showing the opposite. Infact we've got evidence of a rather large drop in young-white GOP vote in Florida without Trump being present. Anyways onto the regularly scheduled conflict.

    White Women

    Massachusetts - 78%
    Connecticut - 74% - I've got a feeling the areas rising racial-diversity is going to switch this around, the area is going to go from very few non-white births a decade ago to 25-30% are Latino births alone now.
    Minnesota - 70% - Weird considering how the 2016/2018 mock elections show a very competitive state coming up
    Maryland - 70%
    Washington - 68%
    Kansas - 68% - I'm actually not surprised considering the college-education impact.
    Wisconsin - 68%
    Oregon - 67%
    New York - 67%
    Colorado - 65%
    Ohio - 64%
    Iowa - 64% - See Minnesota and Steve King's performance with Gen Z
    Illinois - 64%
    New Jersey - 63%
    Michigan - 62%
    Pennsylvania - 60% - was actually surprised to see it this low on a mainstream poll and after the steller performance of the state's Democrats in 2018
    Indiana - 60%
    Arizona - 60%
    California - 58% - This one really stood out to me!!!
    Missouri - 58%
    Virginia - 57% - Which just goes to show the impact 1/3rd of the state being NoVa does to the Republican chances
    Kentucky - 56% - Appalachian swing states make some amount of sense long-term for me if you know the history of the region, as the region gets more high-school educated/college-educated voters, expect higher turnouts and return of regional rainbow coalition socialist movements
    Utah - 55%
    Arkansas - 54% - Seen a few mock elections where Hillary did well in Arkansas, thought it was name recognition, might be something else.
    Oklahoma - 53%
    North Carolina - 53%
    South Carolina - 52%
    Tennessee - 52%
    Texas - 52% - urban/suburban white women of Texas have a sizable share of the vote to them, but losing them, and while the state slowly inches more non-white in voter registrations is a death sentence for the entire EC (reminder Arizona is still short of 35% of Gen Z voters being non-white in 2018, Texas had 71% white Gen Z vote in 2014 but Beto probably did a number on that in 2018)
    Florida - 51%
    Georgia - 46% - until the end times Georgia will be a white v black state, even if some urbanized college-edu whites are now Liberal-Democrats, and younger blacks are 20% Republican, we're still going to get a white v black skin games state.
    Alabama - 43%
    Louisiana - 39%

    White Men

    Maryland - 65% - !
    Massachusetts - 60%
    Wisconsin - 54% - I wanna say this is a state where non-college white vote trended more Dem in 2018 than 2016, but we had some improvements with non-white voters. Spoiler we won the state because black turnout was pathetically low in 2016 compared to other years. Like a considerable drop-off in black turnout
    Minnesota - 54%
    Washington - 52%
    Michigan - 51%
    Ohio - 49% - Disappointing if true, but doubtful.
    Colorado - 48%
    Kentucky - 47%
    Illinois - 47%
    Arizona - 45%
    Missouri - 45%
    Pennsylvania - 45%
    Indiana - 43%
    North Carolina - 43%
    Utah - 42%
    Virginia - 42%
    Tennessee - 42% - matches a lot of mock-elections
    New Jersey - 41%
    New York - 40% - Seems white men in the Northeast are some of the most based, gotta feel bad
    Georgia - 38%

    Gen Z White Men disapproval of Trump by region

    Far-west - 48%
    Far-west (everything but Nevada/Oregon) - 52%
    Far-west (everything but Nevada/California) - 45%
    Far-west (everything but California/Oregon) - 48%

    (The mock election indicators of Nevada since the 90s have shown the state will become irreversibly Democrat despite us showing white-men rapprochement)

    Great-Lakes - 57%

    New-England - 59%
    New-England (everything but Rhode Island/Connecticut) - 58%
    New-England - Maine safer than New Hampshire and thats way safer than rest

    Plains - 53%
    Plains (everything but Iowa/Kansas) - 56%
    Plains (everything but Kansas/Missouri) - 55%
    Plains (everything but Iowa/Missouri) - 54%
    Plains Women (everything but Iowa/Kansas) - 68%
    Plains Women (everything but Kansas/Missouri) - 66%
    Plains Women (everything but Iowa/Missouri) - 64%

    Aka we've got a Kansas problem


    Rocky (everything but Utah/Idaho) - 47%
    Rocky (everything but Utah/Montana) - 49%


    Southeast - 40%
    Southeast (everything but Florida/Virginia) - 39%
    Southeast (everything but Florida/North Carolina) - 39%
    Southeast (everything but Florida/Georgia) - 37%
    Southeast (everything but Florida/ Kentucky/West Virginia) - 41%
    Southeast (everything but Florida/Alabama) - 35%
    Southeast (everything but Kentucky/West Virginia) - 46%
    Southeast (everything but North Carolina/West Virginia) - 43%
    Southeast (everything but North Carolina/Kentucky) - 44%
    Southeast (everything but North Carolina/Alabama) - 39%
    Southeast (everything but North Carolina/Virginia) - 43%
    Southeast (everything but North Carolina/Georgia) - 40%
    Southeast (everything but Georgia/Virginia) - 40%
    Southeast (everything but Alabama/Georgia) - 35%

    Southwest - 37%
    Southwest (everything but Ok/TX) - 36%
    Southwest (everything but TX/AZ) - 37%
    Southwest (everything but Texas/New Mexico) - 35%
    Southwest (everything but Arizona/New Mexico) - 44%
    Southwest (Everything but Arizona/Okla) - 42%

    Lumped in the Hispanic by sex together due to sample sizes, but the gender divided is evident here, like Texas Hispanic youth men being only 60% disapprove but young Hispanic women are 80% disapproval . I've already talked to Audacious epigone a bit about my thoughts on the future only swing state that'll matter Texas

    Hispanic Gen Z disspaorval of Trump

    Florida - 70%
    Texas - 70%
    Arizona - 71%
    California - 75%
    Colorado - 75%

    Far West - 75%
    Great Lakes - 75%
    Mid-Atlantic - 70% - NY/PA - 71, NJ/PA - 70, NJ/NY - 72
    New England - 66%
    Plains - 70%
    Rocky - 70%
    Southeast - 65%
    Southwest - 72%


    Black youth Gen Z Opposed to Trump (tfw 20% GOP is now considered amazing)

    Virginia - 82% - you'd think it woulda been very low not the highest
    North Carolina - 82%
    Mississippi - 82%
    Georgia - 81%
    South Carolina - 80%
    Maryland - 79%
    Alabama - 75%
    Louisiana - 69%
    Tennessee - 68%

    Far West - 83%
    Far West (minus Washington) - 84%
    Far West (minus Oregon) - 83%
    Far West (minus Nevada) - 83%
    Far west (minus California) - 78%

    California's blacks hate Trump, explains the open-border policies of the states black electorate (spoiler southern blacks more anti-immigration, have a few studies on it, if anyone wants)

    Great Lakes - 79%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Wisconsin/Michigan) - 79%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Wisconsin/Ohio) - 82%
    Great-Lakes (minus all but Wisconsin/Minnesota) - No-data
    Great-Lakes (minus all but Wisconsin/Indiana) - 77%
    Great-Lakes (minus all but Wisconsin/Illinois) - 74%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Minnesota/Ohio) - 85%
    Great-Lakes (minus all but Minnesota/Michigan) - 82%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Minnesota/Indiana) - No-data
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Minnesota/Illinois) - 76%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Ohio/Indiana) - 83%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Ohio/Illinois) - 80%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Ohio/Michigan) - 83%
    Great-Lakes (Minus all but Michigan/Indiana) - 80%

    Mid-Atlantic - 80%
    Mid-Atlantic (Minus Maryland, New York) - 84%
    Mid-Atlantic (Minus Maryland, New Jersey) - 79%
    Mid-Atlantic (Minus Maryland, DC, Delaware, New Jersey) - 79%
    Mid-Atlantic (Minus Maryland, DC, Delaware, New York) - 86%
    Mid-Atlantic (Minus Maryland, DC, Delaware, Pennsylvania) - 79%

    Surprised about New York

    New-England - 80%

    Plains - 80%
    Plains - (Minus North/South Dakota, kansas) - 79%
    Plains - (Minus North/South Dakota, Iowa) - 81%

    Rocky Mountains - Not Available

    Southeast - 77%
    Southeast (Minus everything but Arkansas, Florida, West Virginia, Kentucky) - 73%
    Southeast (minus everything but Florida, West Virginia, Kentucky) - 75%
    Southeast (Minus everything but Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky) - 71%
    Southeast (Just Florida/Virginia) - 75%

    So Florida blacks def lean more GOP

    Southwest - 78%

    We did ok with blacks in the governor race in Texas


    Black Men - 72%
    Far-west - No-data
    Great Lakes - 72%
    Mid-Atlantic - 75%
    New-England - No-Data
    Plains - No-data
    Rocky - No-data
    Southeast - 70%
    Southwest - No-data

    Great data dump there, thanks.

    The filters are shortcuts, but users are able to specify exact age ranges if interested in isolating smaller ranges (ie 18-25). Just click an age filter and then reduce (or expand) the numbers in the URL.

  43. @Tyrion 2
    Political correctness is insidious. I frequently hear people measuring harmless comments against it. I'm currently listening to a group of early 20 something ask if "cultural appropriation is ever ok?". Supposedly a celebrity had a picture with an African child for charity and that was racist or something. This is so weird.

    I’m not writing anything novel by suggesting the humorously absurd as the most effective (and safest) way to approach a situation like that: “No, it is never okay to have your picture taken with a black person, let alone a child!”

  44. @Mr. Rational

    The thing is that the past two years of college campus riots has soured the public on free speech once they saw the security costs.
     
    Only because the administrations refuse to take the criminal threats seriously and deal with the malefactors with arrests and no-trespass orders.  They could put the leaders behind bars and prohibit the rest from coming within earshot for cheap, and it would only take 1 or 2 instances to veto the heckler's veto.

    The problem is that the administrations, from the university presidents on down, are traitors and need to be fired and kicked out of the country.

    Indeed. That the Trump Justice Department has totally dropped the ball on this is one of the more disappointing things about his presidency.

  45. @216
    Real time evidence that conservatives are stupid and deserve to be replaced

    https://twitter.com/SirDeruiex/status/1104389822766931969

    Heh, that’s a twofer. If “nearly 5-in-10” voters are voting against me in the election–GREAT, I win!

    The disdain for one of the few remaining institutions that protect the interests of WCWs is even dumber, of course.

  46. @Stan d Mute

    To put the argument in bumper sticker format: Free speech is how we discover truth.
     
    But it’s not is it, not really. It’s adversity and survival. We all deny reality at some level because truth can be uncomfortable to accept. Maybe it’s denying that one’s wife is a royal mean cunt because the consequences of recognition would be monumentally difficult. Or maybe it’s denying that one’s kid is quite stupid or that one really is an unlikeable asshole because he refuses to filter or censor himself. But everyone does it to some extent no?

    Facing reality as it exists is perhaps the hardest thing for humans to do and we often go to outrageous lengths to deny it. Look at the costs we’ve incurred in avoiding the truth that Africans are a sub-species unready for civilizational modernity as just one example.

    Maybe we need AI to save us from our own weaknesses and sentimentalities.

    Then how do we discover truth if not by open inquiry?

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    My point is that free speech doesn’t exist in practice, only in theory. There is always some prude shouting “blasphemy!” and desperately trying to silence expression of ideas or language contrary to their own ideologies and interests. On a spectrum of complete freedom to total repression, we have freer speech than other societies, but you don’t have to try hard to find the boundaries here do you? Subjects like race, religion, sexuality, intelligence, genetics/biology, biosphere/climate, etc all have very sharp edges.

    Try discussing whether fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue are biological or psychological maladies. How can we advance if we can’t even ask the questions? I can’t (yet) be jailed for questioning the holocaust (in America) but I’ll be deplatformed, lose my livelihood, and be socially ostracized. This is true of virtually every subject to varying degrees. So how can truth ever be known? That’s my point, that perhaps it will take an AI that lacks juvenile biases and feelings to objectively analyze the facts and data, perhaps we simply lack the ability as a species to ever be impartial observers. We come closest when our lives depend on the correct answer - but even there we fail. Look at highway fatalities for instance, we see that impaired driving is causing deaths and ban drug & alcohol impaired operation of vehicles. But do we perform competency tests on sober drivers to assess their decision making capacity or reaction times? How many die because we have idiots operating motor vehicles? A stone drunk Formula One caliber driver is safer than a cold sober semi-retarded (censored) yet one is a criminal and the other a law-abiding citizen. There is virtually no area of human inquiry where we can’t find examples like this.
  47. @Audacious Epigone
    Then how do we discover truth if not by open inquiry?

    My point is that free speech doesn’t exist in practice, only in theory. There is always some prude shouting “blasphemy!” and desperately trying to silence expression of ideas or language contrary to their own ideologies and interests. On a spectrum of complete freedom to total repression, we have freer speech than other societies, but you don’t have to try hard to find the boundaries here do you? Subjects like race, religion, sexuality, intelligence, genetics/biology, biosphere/climate, etc all have very sharp edges.

    Try discussing whether fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue are biological or psychological maladies. How can we advance if we can’t even ask the questions? I can’t (yet) be jailed for questioning the holocaust (in America) but I’ll be deplatformed, lose my livelihood, and be socially ostracized. This is true of virtually every subject to varying degrees. So how can truth ever be known? That’s my point, that perhaps it will take an AI that lacks juvenile biases and feelings to objectively analyze the facts and data, perhaps we simply lack the ability as a species to ever be impartial observers. We come closest when our lives depend on the correct answer – but even there we fail. Look at highway fatalities for instance, we see that impaired driving is causing deaths and ban drug & alcohol impaired operation of vehicles. But do we perform competency tests on sober drivers to assess their decision making capacity or reaction times? How many die because we have idiots operating motor vehicles? A stone drunk Formula One caliber driver is safer than a cold sober semi-retarded (censored) yet one is a criminal and the other a law-abiding citizen. There is virtually no area of human inquiry where we can’t find examples like this.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS