/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4314575]

>discussing 1984 in class
>prof mentions how lucky we are to have free speech

>i mention thought crime and how questioning the holocaust is against our laws
>prof looses her shit and yells at me for even bringing up the idea
>kid behind me calls me a bigot

Humanities.

[Anonymous No.4314576]

>>4314575

>implying this happened

[Anonymous No.4314579]

>>4314575
Actually in Germany and Canada ppl vet sent to jail for questioning it...its not as bad in the USA tho

[Anonymous No.4314582]

>>4314579
Lol in Sweden a catholic bishop was excommunicated for disputing the 6million number and they fined him. 12000 dollars

[Anonymous No.4314585]

Stay edgy OP, your golden honorary Fedora for "shitposting" is in the mail.

[Anonymous No.4314588]

YuOr prof is an idiot

[Anonymous No.4314591]

>>4314579
>Canada
Really? I'm Canadian and I never knew this. Although I know there are laws against it in Germany.

[Anonymous No.4314596]

>>4314579
in the US its really hard to prosecute but in France the UK and Canada they can prosecute you for a lot of stuff

[Anonymous No.4314620]

>not bringing constant monitoring and espionage on the inter-webs
>not telling that despite Orwell failed, Bradbury was right and now days free speech means nothing with non-free information access and fooling medial facade.
>bringing stupid shit like holocaust denial

[Anonymous No.4314624]

>/pol/ actually thinks holocaust denial laws are in place as a thought crime

[Anonymous No.4314760]

>>4314575
Freedom of speech is never an absolute. There is no country that gives its people a right to unrestricted free speech unfettered by libel laws, incitement, provocation, etc.

Don't confuse freedom to act reasonably with freedom to act like a prick. We are fortunate to have the former, and right to guard against the latter.

[Anonymous No.4314793]

The "6 million" figure is total horseshit and any historian will agree with you. You need to be a bit of a dick to fully deny the whole thing though.

[Anonymous No.4314799]

>>4314760
>don't confuse the freedom to act reasonably with the freedom to act like a prick

Reflect on that statement for a second.

[Anonymous No.4314806]

>>4314624
what are they then?

Is denying the Armenian Genocide a thought crime since it isn't Jews?

[Anonymous No.4314823]

>>4314624
please do explain how it's not the case, I'm curious

[Anonymous No.4314820]

>>4314806
It's not a thought crime because nothing is.

You can think of murdering your neighbor but as long as you actually do it no one can prosecute you.

[Anonymous No.4314824]

>>4314793
>any historian will agree with you
Umm, no, most historians agree with a figure between 5 to 7 million Jews, with an additions 4 to 6 million other peoples, killed.

[Anonymous No.4314826]

If i were german i would go to the biggest city in germany and spray paint on a wall "Only 59999 jews died in the holocaust."

[Anonymous No.4314833]

>>4314824
Yeah around 11 million people died in German Camps.

Large numbers of POW were also starved to death and counted among these.

[Anonymous No.4314837]

>>4314820
So it's more a free-speech issue than thought crime?

[Anonymous No.4314841]

>>4314820
Ever heard of attempted murder?
You don't have to actually do something for it to be illegal

[Anonymous No.4314846]

>>4314841
>Attempted
You still have to fucking DO something, you retard.

[Anonymous No.4314852]

>>4314846
you can plan to murder someone tomorrow, if the police find it along with evidence you were seriously going to follow through it would be attempted murder

[Anonymous No.4314857]

>>4314846
Do I murder though?
NO
It's just like a thought crime.

Conspiracy to Murder

Islamic Radicalisation

Put whatever tag you want on it, it's thought crime

[Anonymous No.4314858]

>>4314852
>The attempt must have gone beyond mere planning or preparation

[Anonymous No.4314865]

>>4314837
Yes

[Anonymous No.4314867]

>>4314575

I'm thankful my humanities teachers were so based. They would have used this to explore the dark side of free speech.

[Anonymous No.4314879]

>>4314575
piss off back to /pol/ you shill

[Anonymous No.4314882]

>>4314867
Free discussion of history is the dark side in this example?

[Anonymous No.4314901]

>>4314879
>you shill
you piss off back to /pol/ and come back to /lit/ when you decide to stop using words you don't know the meaning of.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill

[Anonymous No.4314913]

>>4314901
How so?

Isn't he saying the OP was a troll.

Of course he's not working on behalf of an enterprise (other than trolling) so I suppose it doesn't apply.

[Anonymous No.4314970]

>>4314913
well OP is not pretending to be an uninterested party.
from what i gather shill is part of /pol/ lingo because of this
>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/students-offered-grants-if-they-tweet-proisraeli-propaganda-8760142.html
problem is that /pol/lacks are idiots and the word there is just NO U there.

[Anonymous No.4314973]

>>4314575
Sucks. I don't care of either of our opinions on the Holocaust, I'm just laughing at the irony here too.

[Anonymous No.4315016]

>>4314591
We've got laws against hate speech eh

[Anonymous No.4315022]

>>4314575

>2013
>actually believing that contemporary academia opposes censorship

I warned you about the Magians, bro.

I told you, dog.

[Anonymous No.4315037]

It's not just the Holocaust, it's becoming an increasingly wide-range of things.

It actually forces those of us who are racist to develop new modes of speech, since the ultimate aim of the people devising the laws is to deprive the thoughtcriminal of even the language that makes it possible to conceptualize verboten things. You see this in genuinely smart thinkers on the radical right like the late Jonathan Bowden and Alex Kurtagic and even Mencius Moldbug too.

Terms like "vibrancy deficient school districts" for example. They're funny, they send liberals into fits of monomaniacally spouting "racist" and it just forces you to be smarter.

It's just fun to play around with PC zealots, to get them them increasingly worked up over seemingly increasingly petty things.

[Anonymous No.4315038]

>>4314867
That's biased to begin with.

"We'll discuss it, but only in the context of presenting it as something verboten and morally evil."

[Anonymous No.4315040]

>>4314596
>France the UK and Canada they can prosecute you for a lot of stuff

like what?

[Anonymous No.4315046]

>>4315037

Do you follow Outside In?

Moldbug is a boss. His "pwning Richard Dawkins" series had me in stitches.

[Anonymous No.4315048]

>>4315040
Not him but you've got a huge range of things like "racially aggravated public order offenses" and "incitement to racial hatred" (a lot more broad than it would initially seem).

There's also some weird thing in police procedural rules here where if a community views something as a hate crime, the police must follow it up as such, meaning its more likely to go to the public prosecutor as a hate crime. Naturally this means that hate crimes against whites are less likely to be prosecuted as such since the "white community" is a bunch of deracinated idiots who play racial universalists clinging on to a meaningless "civic identity" whilst all the non-whites action their racial tribalism with a plethora of interest groups.

Fuck liberalism.

[Anonymous No.4315055]

>>4314867
>dark side of free speech
wow you went to a shitty fucking school if you have professors who still seriously grapple with the concept of free speech

[Anonymous No.4315057]

>>4315037
>people get angry when we talk about leaving children in shitholes that end up sending them to prison
>lol i'm so clever

no you're a fucking asshole

[Anonymous No.4315059]

>>4315046
Moldbug's great. He's a prime example of someone that your average liberal can't really traduce or defame properly since his prose is too purposefully elaborate to read any crude racism into whilst at the same time he's fairly straightforward at things like believing in racial difference.

If you tell your average liberal you don't believe in democracy and human rights they either think you're joking or accuse you of being "edgy" (which is ridiculous as edgy behavior is generally associated with gaining subcultural social capital, which being a radical rightist doesn't bestow). The common thread is that they can't even conceptualize the idea of people being opposed to "liberal values" in their broadest sense (deriving from Locke, Mill, Rousseau et al) because they're too stupid to recognize this is ideological. They just see any opposition as either retrograde and doomed to fail in the face of Hegelian dialectic or evidence of some sort of pathological insanity.

Dawkins:

Even before Moldbug I knew Dawkins was a retard since he's an evolutionary biologist who either thinks religion is some artificial edifice conspiratorially passed down across the globe from generation to generation which confers no evolutionary advantage in terms of GES/group cohesion or, alternatively, he believes it does confer the above but that we can simply will away this requirement because "we don't need it anymore" (a common, retarded, classical liberal attitude towards elements of nature that they don't like).

[Anonymous No.4315063]

>>4315057
I don't believe in prison for most offenses. I believe in the death penalty and corporal punishment.

Try again.

[Anonymous No.4315066]

>>4315059
human rights is a flawed frame work, but to say you don't believe in them says "i don't give a shit about human beings who don't already have all these rights"

the reason they can't handle that is because you don't derive those ideas from rational elaboration

you derive them (to a degree) from being socialized into them, and you derive them (to a degree) from being capable of basic human empathy. i guess the second one is where you fucked up

[Anonymous No.4315067]

>>4315063
ok, i'm sorry mr. dodge the question

the point is these communities are suffering because they are under assault, and have been for centuries

and then assholes like you feel proud because people get angry when make light of it

that's really not clever

it still makes you an asshole

but i guess you can try pull a weird technical dodge without engaging with substance

it's all you rightist stooges know how to do

[Anonymous No.4315070]

>>4315066
Human rights isn't just a flawed framework, the entire foundational basis (God) was simply destroyed and the gaping holes were papered over with hilariously bad consequentialist "logic".

>the reason they can't handle that is because you don't derive those ideas from rational elaboration

My opposition to liberalism is based on rational argumentation. The entire foundation of liberalism is based on pseudoscientific principles. Everything Marxism asserted about the mutability of human nature is patently false and has been proven to be false.

If you want to get into a genetic argument about this, feel free, but you'll be beaten fairly quickly.

>you derive them (to a degree) from being socialized into them, and you derive them (to a degree) from being capable of basic human empathy. i guess the second one is where you fucked up

Yes, I lack empathy because I don't indulge an ego-driven desire to posture at ultimately meaningless outgroup altruism that, nine times out of ten, does more harm than good anyway.

And I wasn't socialized into believing in reactionary principles, my parents are both fairly apolitical and I was a Chomskyite reading leftard for most of my teens.

That sort of ended when I realized that liberals can't even present a coherent ethical case for the entire foundation of their belief system ("equality as a moral good in of itself").

[Anonymous No.4315079]

>>4315067
>the point is these communities are suffering because they are under assault, and have been for centuries

Where is your actual, functional proof for this?

>>4315067
I don't answer loaded questions based on false premises. Yours is a loaded question because it assumes that we've demonstrated environment (outside of deterrents) as the primary cause of crime and because you assume I believe in prison.

Your ideas are dead, enjoy captaining the Titanic for a while longer though.

[Anonymous No.4315082]

>tfw you're a liberal/leftwinger who thinks making holocaust denial a crime is stupid as hell

[Anonymous No.4315087]

[Anonymous No.4315088]

>>4314575
>prof looses her shit

Filthy. Shat herself in class?

[Anonymous No.4315090]

>>4315070
>liberals can't even present a coherent ethical case for the entire foundation of their belief system
well that's because the foundation goes without saying dumbass, every ethical system needs axioms

>I lack empathy because I don't indulge an... altruism ...
this is pretty much the definition of not having empathy, so yeah

ethics aren't something i'm going to bother arguing because it's fucking stupid to base them in rationality. you seem to try to though because you're a fucking moron who doesn't understand how axioms and basic deductive logic works and i'm not really going to bother educating you unless you demonstrate a willingness to actually learn from others.

i'm just saying, you're a fucking asshole, relying on 10th-grade tier "but why should we care about others" shit

[Anonymous No.4315092]

>>4315087
Latuf being a deliberately dishonest lefty.

Muslims have more than enough victim cred. They've even got idiot liberals believing that the Arab and Ottoman Caliphates were these benign, highly tolerant empires for goodness sake.

[Anonymous No.4315096]

This book is good?

http://www.moreright.net/books/Mencius%20Moldbug/How%20Dawkins%20got%20pwned.pdf

[Anonymous No.4315097]

>>4315059
>gaining subcultural social capital, which being a radical rightist doesn't bestow
Eh? Why on earth not?

[Anonymous No.4315099]

>>4315070
>>4315079
>>4315059

Hi can you start wearing a trip please :)

[Anonymous No.4315101]

>>4315079
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
and for a modern flavor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_stop-and-frisk_program

cool
1 it's not loaded now
2 the people you're arguing with believe this, so of course they get emotional, you're still not fucking clever, yours is the loaded assertion, it assumes it fucking matters whether or not these beliefs are right

just fucking quit, white boy

>>4315082
me too, no one gives a shit, we get it you're capable of differing from the majority of a social group in your position on an issue. good job. go buy yourself some fucking gold stars.

[Anonymous No.4315102]

>>4315090
>well that's because the foundation goes without saying dumbass, every ethical system needs axioms

You still need to justify it you moron. You can't just pull an axiom out of thin air and work from there even if you're adopting an axiomatic deductive approach.

>this is pretty much the definition of not having empathy, so yeah

Really? So a filmmaker can put a deliberate tearjerker on the big screen for a political point and he wins you over?

That's not being "empathic", that's having a weak mind. There's always an overton window for what the media depicts as sympathetic: Compare the number of human interest stories on the news about "poor immigrants suffering racism" compared to "poor natives suffering an upheavel of their homeland".

>i'm just saying, you're a fucking asshole, relying on 10th-grade tier "but why should we care about others" shit

You're proving my point in your defense against it. You actually believe the only alternative to liberalism is some kind of shapeless conception of what you consider to be oppositionally "evil".

The triumph of liberalism has been so definitive, in fact, that in the West it has ceased to be political, or ideological, and become a taken-for-granted practice. Westerners think in liberal terms by default, assuming that no sane, rational, educated person could think differently, accusing dissenters of being ideological, without realizing that their own assumptions have ideological origins.

[Anonymous No.4315107]

>>4315097
Because there is not "radical right" subculture IRL outside of skinhead idiots who are reviled by virtually everyone, including the more intelligent members of their own side and tiny, tiny groups that hide their views from everyone, including family members.

Subcultural social capital is things like radical leftism, which is fairly acceptable within certain broad social circles (aspects of campus societies and life for example).

>>4315101
La Wik is not proof. Do you understand what the word "functional" means in this context? It means you have to demonstrate a functional link between the two things. Unless you really are a complete environmental determinist to the point you believe humans merely experience the ebb and flow of time and space and are made into form by nebulous, non-falsifiable (convenient eh?) concepts like white privilege and phantom discrimination.

>it assumes it fucking matters whether or not these beliefs are right

lmao, of course it matters whether not they're right you histrionic little bitch.

[Anonymous No.4315109]

Oh-kay ...

>I dropped some free speech on my prof who dropped some right back.
>Someone else followed up with, oddly enough, some free speech.

You ... had an exercise in free speech. What is the problem here?

>Humanities.

Well, I agree this is a problem. Go hang with the geology or marine science departments.

You'll enjoy your stay there a whole lot more this way. I know I did.

[Anonymous No.4315113]

>>4315090

So everyone prior to the French Revolution was immoral and evil?

You do realize the implications of what you're claiming here right?

[Anonymous No.4315118]

>>4315048
>Naturally this means that hate crimes against whites are less likely to be prosecuted as such since the "white community" is a bunch of deracinated idiots who play racial universalists clinging on to a meaningless "civic identity" whilst all the non-whites action their racial tribalism with a plethora of interest groups.

Dude what
I live in France and I have no idea what you're rambling about

[Anonymous No.4315120]

>>4315090
Not that guy but that's easy:
>"but why should we care about others"
First of all, because someone might beat your shit if you don't. That's pretty rational: don't be a dick or you'll have problems. Other than this, what happens when there's no one who can slap you? Well, look at the most powerful people on earth, they do what they want and they get away with it. Your morals are the base of your behavior: if you are the strongest there's no limit to your behavior, if you are not, then you must find limits or get you'll eventually get your shit slapped.

"Dis be a dawgee-dawg world."
Thomas Hobbes dixit.

[Anonymous No.4315122]

>>4314575
>>i mention thought crime and how questioning the holocaust is against our laws

Confirmed clueless.

[Anonymous No.4315123]

>>4315102
no
you actually don't
an ethics system based around the production of chairs is just as valid logically
welcome to the 21st century, time to be a big boy

yeah, he does if he's good at it and reflects some factual truth in his depiction of people who struggle. i'm sorry you think i have a weak mind because i'm not so insecure in my sexuality that i have to prop it up with boneheaded emotional coldness.

you're right, we don't talk about what america does to the rest of the world. we should. we should have sympathetic stories about third world countries too.

no, i'm saying i think you're evil. because i believe in those things.

there are no fucking objective ethics you idiot. of course i think you're evil because i'm not an asshole, and you are an asshole. i don't think you're irrational, insane, or uneducated (ok maybe that one by your inability to grasp the implications of even basic postmodern understanding), i just think you suck

>>4315107
i don't have to be a complete environmental determinist
i just have to be a partial one
some people would survive no matter what
some people would fuck up no matter what
and some people would just barely make it

then they got sent to shitty ass schools and didn't

if you're gonna try and argue environment doesn't have some effect, i'm not bothering with you because you're sort of the kind of person who i legitimately want to kill

if you acknoweledge environment has some sway, then you acknowledge they're being fucked over

[Anonymous No.4315124]

>>4315118
>I live in France and I have no idea what you're rambling about

You either don't live in France or are completely clueless about your own country's laws. It's illegal to gather data by race in France. It makes even hard sciences like population genetics incredibly difficult to perform.

[Anonymous No.4315127]

>>4315107
So radical right intellectuals don't have higher social capital than others within their own groups? I'm not sure I can buy that. It's just that the subcultures are smaller.

I'd also disagree that 'edginess' is about IRL social capital. That would mean we'd need another word for kids trying to shock people on 4chan, which is precisely when I find the word 'edgy' most useful.

[Anonymous No.4315135]

>>4315120
why should you care about getting your shit slapped?
teenage egoists pls go

>>4315113
by my very contemporary standards, yes
it's almost like
ethics are subjective
and historical context is important

[Anonymous No.4315136]

>>4315124
The reason there is no racial census in France is because we do not think race is a sound concept to classify people. We do have data about foreigners and immigrants by nationality though. But what I was aiming at was the whole "non-whites action their racial tribalism hurr durr" part, what the hell does that even mean.

[Anonymous No.4315141]

>>4315109
This. You are free to question the Holocaust, people are free to call you a dick for doing so. Each party exercised free speech. /pol/tards should stop whining about being censored when what they actually want is to censor others (i.e. being able to rant about the jews without being talked back, which is kind of a childish attitude when you think of it, which says a lot about the mentality of a typical /pol/ resident).

[Anonymous No.4315149]

>>4315123
>an ethics system based around the production of chairs is just as valid logically

No it isn't. Since even with an axiomatic deductive approach you need to explain the original axiom. See: Austrian Jewconomics as an example.

>i'm not so insecure in my sexuality that i have to prop it up with boneheaded emotional coldness.

lol go back to fetlife or something you worthless Freudian/Marcusian idiot. I simply don't believe a sob story about poor African migrants is enough to assuage my belief in having strong, functional and workable immigration systems. That's because I like things that work, interesting, the world's ascendent superpower agrees with me, not you.

>i just have to be a partial one

Actually you do have to be a total one since these are materially falsifiable claims about aspects of human behavior that have, surprise, been established by GWAS to have a significant genetic component.

>if you're gonna try and argue environment doesn't have some effect

Nobody on the right has ever claimed that environment doesn't have an effect. Even wicked racists like J Rushton acknowledged environment playing a significant role. The only complete determinists have always been radical leftists who deny any prior biological notion of man whatsoever.

>then you acknowledge they're being fucked over

Uh, no you don't since heredity works inter-generationally you tard.

From a philosophical perspective, the entire problem with this issue is that the burden of proof has been misplaced. It is not up to the "racists" to show that humans are neurologically diverse. It is up to the leftists to show that they are neurologically identical.

Of course they have seldom even started to try, and when they have they tend to fail. Typically, the Gould-Rose-Lewontin crowd's approach is to postulate a theoretical mechanism by which the observed facts could be explained without reference to human biodiversity, and demand that their opponents disprove this mechanism. Once you know the game, however, there is no reason to play it.

[Anonymous No.4315158]

>>4315136
>But what I was aiming at was the whole "non-whites action their racial tribalism hurr durr" part, what the hell does that even mean.

It means non-whites organize themselves under the banner of their respective races and pursue what they perceive as their group interests using these mechanisms. For example, Hispanic groups in the United States pursuing a policy of watering down US law to accommodate more Hispanics in the United States.

That's a pretty clear case of their perceived ethnicity overriding their supposed civic identity. Why, it's almost as if civic identities are fucking meaningless!

[Anonymous No.4315161]

>>4315149
No one ever said everyone was neurologically identical, but seeing that race is not a scientifically sound concept genetically speaking and thus it's fucking retarded to lump a bunch of people together because they're black or have slanted eyes, it's even more fucking retarded to try and infer a neurological pattern consistent within one of those pseudoscientific groups.

[Anonymous No.4315163]

>>4315120

>Other than this, what happens when there's no one who can slap you? Well, look at the most powerful people on earth, they do what they want and they get away with it. Your morals are the base of your behavior: if you are the strongest there's no limit to your behavior

This is exactly the reason why this approach to ethics is inherently wrong.

There are people who genuinely base their morality on empathy and respect. They're not just pretending, it's innate. If everyone's morality functioned in this way the world would be better for it.

The fact that people like you exist allows for those abuses of power you speak about. You are the problem.

[Anonymous No.4315169]

>>4314882

Holocaust denial is not an intellectually credible position. We know beyond all reasonable doubt that a systematic campaign to eradicate Jews/Roma/the disabled/political dissidents/other untermensch took place.

For christ's sake, we've probably all seen footage, photos, or documentation which establishes this much. It's not like we're taking it on faith.

>>4315038

The point being that free speech as an abstract ideal isn't very useful to moral reasoning, because we can present morally questionable cases of restricted freedom of speech, and of unrestricted free speech.

If you're saying that it's biased to believe that holocaust deniers are full of shit, then I disrespectfully disagree.

>>4315055

I didn't have 'professors', anon, I had 'teachers'. I was fifteen. I hardly expect them to bust out a college level dissection of the moral importance (or lack thereof) of free speech.

We're on a literature forum, try reading next time.

[Anonymous No.4315171]

>>4315158
>It means non-whites organize themselves under the banner of their respective races and pursue what they perceive as their group interests using these mechanisms.
I've heard of no such thing, and god knows I've interacted with many, many people from "ethnical minorities".

>durr 2005 riots
yeah except they were socially motivated; youths from a certain district felt no association to other youths from another district even if they belonged to the same minority or whatever, so the social (and possibly religious) factor predated the ethnical factor by far

[Anonymous No.4315173]

>>4315109
>Humanities
>tfw can't go against the PC faggotry of some teachers because of local teacher-is-always-right-dont-question mentality
>tfw nigger associations are lobbying so i can't call my nigger friends niggers even if they are cool with it
>tfw being slow and a faster peer makes an incredibly dumb and shallow question that takes up the entire question space instead of making a better one myself
>tfw i realize PC is going to kill dozens of homos because nobody wants to treat them as sick but they still need the help
>tfw idiots always choose abortion and gay marriage for debates but i don't bother to debate them anymore
>tfw i don't even bother with anything anymore
>Humanities
kowagaruna naruto saoto mamore

[Anonymous No.4315176]

>>4315141
>You are free to question the Holocaust
Not the same anon, and not /pol/, but in some places it is literally illegal.

[Anonymous No.4315178]

>>4314575
please get the fuck out of lit, back to pol or b or wherever you came from

[Anonymous No.4315182]

>>4315136
>we do not think race is a sound concept to classify people

Population geneticists disagree.

>>4315127
>So radical right intellectuals don't have higher social capital than others within their own groups?

No, they're not large enough to have a concept of social capital in the first place. Most intellectual radical rightist groups are quite literally about 4 people meeting up in the second floor of a pub somewhere.

Radical leftism is broader and commands far greater numbers, see Occupy Wall Street and tumblr. It's also in line with status quo beliefs - I mean, it stands apart from them in its radicalism but they've got the same general principles (equality and individual agency as moral goods etc), radical rightism is not part of this paradigmatic alignment.

>>4315135
>by my very contemporary standards, yes

That's all I needed to know.

>and historical context is important

Yes. Amazing isn't it? Everyone was just too ignorant before they were graced by the brilliance of concepts like "Rousseau and his General Will" and Locke's Blank Slate. Truly we all lived in complete ignorance until people were wealthy enough to be able to isolate themselves from reality to come up with absurd abstractions that are disproven by simply interacting with people in a functional society on a day to day basis.

[Anonymous No.4315186]

What does any of it matter? They're just words from someone's mouth about people that died over 60 years ago. Any one who can't learn to cope with such things is only inviting further darkness into their life.

[Anonymous No.4315187]

>>4315182
>Population geneticists disagree.
lel I study genetics and I've attended a lecture where a geneticist debunks the whole racialist bullshit altogether so I'm afraid you've chosen the wrong person to argue about genetics, don't bother with your 4chan infographs

[Anonymous No.4315189]

>>4315158

>Hispanic political groups agitate on behalf of their racial group, ergo, racial identity reigns supreme at all times, for all peoples, in all groups and races.

Compelling stuff,

[Anonymous No.4315190]

>>4315169
>Holocaust denial is not an intellectually credible position
Non-/pol/ person here. Something being 'intellectually credible' or not should not be a criterion for its legality.

[Anonymous No.4315193]

>>4314575
You wouldn't be so bold. The right is full of cowards.

[Anonymous No.4315195]

>>4315190

I'm quite obviously talking about good practice in the classroom, not the legality of holocaust denial.

[Anonymous No.4315197]

>>4315190
>>4315176
Yeah making it illegal is stupid (Frenchfag here). But questioning it is stupid too, so it's kind of a non-issue. I dislike having my free speech infringed on but as long as the line isn't drawn further I don't care.
>durr sheeple
if you are so anal about not being able to talk shit about jews, what you need is a hobby that doesn't involve jew shit talking

[Anonymous No.4315200]

>>4315161
>that race is not a scientifically sound concept genetically speaking

Continuum fallacy incoming!

>In one of the most extensive of these studies to date, considering 1,056 individuals from 52 human populations, with each individual genotyped for 377 autosomal microsatellite markers, we found that individuals could be partitioned into six main genetic clusters, five of which corresponded to Africa, Europe and the part of Asia south and west of the Himalayas, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas

http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070&ct=1

Or perhaps the "not enough time for genetic divergence to take effect" argument?

> ... the argument that the 100,000 years or so since the dispersal out of Africa were insufficient for the evolution of genetic differences is invalid. To create an IQ difference of, say, 15 points between two populations in 100,000 years, natural selection would have to drive their IQs apart by only 0.004 points every generation - about 1% of the selective pressure in late 20th-century America

http://www.mankindquarterly.org/winter2003_meisenberg.pdf

I see you've already produced the "race is skin color!" fallacy, because, you know, albino africans look exactly the same as Swedes.

To which you'll reply "cosmetic appearance is meaningless and doesn't imply a functional difference in behavior!" which is untrue because 1) Non-superficial traits take no longer to emerge than superficial traits do and 2) We already have the data to prove otherwise!:

>In a study of East Asians, Europeans and Africans, Dr. Pritchard and his colleagues found 700 regions of the genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection in recent times. In East Asians, the average date of these selection events is 6,600 years ago.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/01/race-current-consensus.php

[Anonymous No.4315203]

What a hypocrite, why would he yell at you for using your "free" speech?

[Anonymous No.4315204]

>>4315171
>yeah except they were socially motivated; youths from a certain district felt no association to other youths from another district even if they belonged to the same minority or whatever, so the social (and possibly religious) factor predated the ethnical factor by far

It's funny you're so quick to accept the reasoning of "official inquiries" from a state that refuses to recognize that race even exists.

Why, there's no implicit reason for the state to shift any racial responsibility over to a non-racial reasoning there...

[Anonymous No.4315205]

>>4315200
>1052
wow
such sample size
so rigorous

[Anonymous No.4315210]

>>4315149
>you need to explain the original axiom.
no
that's not how axioms work fucktard

and seriously, the language of weakness and strength is a dead giveaway

>you do have to be a total one
1. as said before, race is meaningless from a scientific perspective
2. let's say, for argument's sake, there is a genetic component. things are still worse because these communities are under assault, and there is no good reason for that to be a thing.

partial environmental determinism is sufficient to say that we should stop fucking over these communities

and that you're not fucking clever for not giving a shit and making people who do angry

>>4315182
i mean, i don't think the enlightenment was some fantastic shit, it was just better than most of what was around before, see: Plato's shit

[Anonymous No.4315211]

>>4315204
>a state that refuses to recognize that race even exists
No it doesn't you dumb fucking moron. The word race is even used in the fucking Constitution so stop talking about shit you don't know. The point is that race means fuck all in terms of genetics. There is more variability within Africans than between some Africans and Europeans, even though all said Africans look black. Educate yourself, pic related. Why do Americans automatically lump all black people together? That's retarded. Even Hitler did not lump white people together.

[Anonymous No.4315212]

>>4314575
I once got called a communist by my 8th grade teacher because I said people should be able to vote for a law they're affected by, in a country they live in, regardless of how long, instead of a minimum of three years.

[Anonymous No.4315213]

>>4315187
>implying minorities aren't obsessed with muh identitties
>implying they don't confrim racialist arguments themselves
Not him but minority political groups are full of idiots.

[Anonymous No.4315215]

>>4315213
Fortunately, they are a vocal minority, as you've said.

[Anonymous No.4315216]

>>4315182

It's like you're actually suggesting that some things we consider evil today weren't once widely practiced and even thought good

[Anonymous No.4315218]

>>4315213
that's because genetically, race means nothing
socially, it's a different story

and people who live through similar experiences tend to be shaped in similar ways

and then they wanna talk about it

but why would i expect white teenagers to understand how nuance works

[Anonymous No.4315219]

>>4314575
My father thinks I am a fascist, because he had seen me reading 1984. Nice book.

[Anonymous No.4315221]

>>4315200
>Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of “biological race.”
Huh. I guess you didn't listen.

[Anonymous No.4315224]

>>4315123
>there are no fucking objective ethics you idiot.
>no, i'm saying i think you're evil.
>you're sort of the kind of person who i legitimately want to kill
its people like you who are the real fucking evil

[Anonymous No.4315225]

>>4315200
>>4315182
>>4315149

see >>4315099 please :)

[Anonymous No.4315226]

>>4315161
>but seeing that race is not a scientifically sound concept genetically speaking
what the fuck are you talking about , its very genetic

[Anonymous No.4315227]

>>4315219
lol what other retarded things does he do

[Anonymous No.4315228]

>>4315226
of course, but classifying people into races is retarded because the classical races do not match actual genetic distances and diversity

[Anonymous No.4315229]

>>4315226
er scientifically sound*

[Anonymous No.4315231]

>>4315218
>that's because genetically, race means nothing


Elaborate?

[Anonymous No.4315232]

>>4314852
False. It would be conspiracy to commit murder.

[Anonymous No.4315239]

>>4315182
>population geneticists
wut
did you just make that up

[Anonymous No.4315240]

>>4315200
Hey, how many races do you believe exist, anon?

[Anonymous No.4315241]

>>4315231
>>that's because genetically, race means nothing
skin color is determined genetically yes
but the concept of black and white and yellow and brown and red
those colors don't match up to discrete genetic profiles or even trends
this guy put it better
>>4315228

[Anonymous No.4315247]

>>4315241
Those colours don't match up to actual skin colours either, e.g. not all 'black' people are equally black, and the difference between Hispanic and Nordic 'white' people is pretty damn obvious too.

[Anonymous No.4315249]

>>4315218
>but why would i expect white teenagers to understand how nuance works
lel
I'm hispanic as fuck and I'm always annoyed to death by hispanic political groups.

[Anonymous No.4315250]

>>4315231
Race is an arbitrary concept used to classify people into groups based on what they look like (skin color, skull shape etc.) However these possible similarities in terms of phenotypes often hide an enormous diversity in terms of genotypes. Until the advent of phylogenetics, people had a naive view that what looked alike must be alike. Now we do know that populations may look alike because of the same environmental pressure but their genotype may be fundamentally different. (The most striking example is the extreme variability between species of fish, even though they all look the same). This also applies to human populations. For instance, Africa has a tremendously diverse range of genotypes that are all very different from one another because they evolved separately (but under similar environmental conditions such as high solar radiation, hence the black skin color). Hence it's stupid to talk about "black people" as if it were anything but a social construct.

[Anonymous No.4315252]

>>4315200

/pol/, look! What's this?

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1456.html

An academic citation? I wonder what the paper says...

>During the last three decades, the scientific community has generated a large volume of data regarding human genetic and phenotypic variation. Recent analyses of multilocus genetic data have generated clusters that correspond closely with socially or geographically defined groups. There is the potential, therefore, for genetic factors to contribute to phenotypic differences between groups. But the skepticism of some scientists of the early 1970s regarding our ability to find genes (if such genes exist) underlying group differences in behavioral traits such as intelligence seems warranted. We are far from characterizing the contribution of genes to between-group variation of any complex trait and are likely to continue struggling in the future.

Stop peddling your pseudoscience, and get back to your containment board, trash.

[Anonymous No.4315254]

>>4315228
i dont think its mean to be taken as exact boundaries

[Anonymous No.4315257]

>>4315254
Dude, look at this >>4315211
Try to draw circles around groups of populations you deem to belong to the same "race". Compare the size and shape of said circles. If race wasn't a fucking retarded concept, they'd look the same.

[Anonymous No.4315265]

>>4315022
mfw history prof explained spengler in a lecture today alongisde hegel and arnold toynbee

[Anonymous No.4315279]

>spout justification of genocide in general, social darwinism, general amoralism, libertinism and egoism in uni classes for the sake of discussion
>it leads to sensible discussion
>prof stays calm
>people discuss whether how morality is established and by which standards killing a few million of a certain group is worse than a few million random people and the ideology that comes with such assumptions
>when some silly person loses his or her shit and erupts into a passionate appeal to emotion the whole class starts clapping sarcastically

lel europe

[Anonymous No.4315280]

>>4315037
>You see this in genuinely smart thinkers on the radical right like the late Jonathan Bowden and Alex Kurtagic and even Mencius Moldbug too.

There's no genuinely smart thinkers on the radical right's side.

[Anonymous No.4315282]

>>4315252
Do you even comprehension?
Did you read that quote you posted? I'm not that guy, but you haven't understood; he's saying that they are struggling to locate the genes, not that they don't exist. It means the science is a long way from being able to clarify genetic groups.

[Anonymous No.4315286]

>>4315252
It'll be interesting when/if people do manage to conclusively link group variations to things like intelligence. I'm not /pol/ at all, but it seems perfectly possible that links might exist, and they'd be very troubling for leftwing ideologies in their current form.

[Anonymous No.4315289]

>>4315286
There is no consensus on a clear definition of intelligence and there is no consensus on a clear definition of races.

[Anonymous No.4315291]

>>4315286
>It'll be interesting when/if people do manage to conclusively link group variations to things like intelligence

[Anonymous No.4315292]

>>4314879
Just because OP brought it up doesn't meanhe actually believes that. Are we not allowed to discuss things that are out of our comfort zone?

[Anonymous No.4315293]

>>4315280
>has read all radical right literature

[Anonymous No.4315294]

>>4315282
>It means the science is a long way from being able to clarify genetic groups
(not the same anon)
Isn't that exactly the point? So the science as it stands does not prove the existence/usefulness of races. It's possible that it might, but until then racist claims that the science supports them are wrong.

[Anonymous No.4315298]

>>4315109
What they said is not morally wrong, OP is just pointing out the irony in her logic.

[Anonymous No.4315300]

>>4315294
It means they haven't located what may be the cause of the IQ discrepancies and so on in that paper. One citation maketh not the entire debate.

[Anonymous No.4315308]

>>4315289
I know. But both might happen in the (probably distant) future, although I suspect the term 'race' will be dropped altogether. I'm pretty surprised /pol/ still uses the term when it tries to claim any scientific backing, actually, since as seen in >>4315221 the actual reports /pol/ cites specifically deny its validity.

[Anonymous No.4315310]

>>4315249
cool, in that case i guess i'm just sad hegemonic control is strong enough to turn you against the people whose struggle are your struggles

[Anonymous No.4315323]

>>4315310
I bet you're the sort of person that thinks all Hispanic people should share the same view just to make it cosy for you. You're as bad as /pol/

[Anonymous No.4315328]

>>4315300
Well, no. But it's a comment about the field in general, and I would be extremely surprised to see a serious academic counter-argument that we actually do know enough about genes, global genetic variation, and complex traits to causally link them with any certainty. That would be a hell of a claim.

[Anonymous No.4315331]

>>4315310
>advocates the "racial interests" of a social construct
>advocates against the "racial interests" of another social construct

you're weird, fag

[Anonymous No.4315335]

>>4315331
(not the same anon) Why can't constructs have interests? It's always weird when I see the words 'just a social construct' as if it means 'doesn't really matter'. Pretty much everything's a social construct, but that doesn't mean that nothing matters.

[Anonymous No.4315336]

>>4315328
I agree, maybe I've confused your position. I assumed you were talking about the outright disproving of academic sources put forward by so called 'race realists' when actually you were saying the debate is still open. My bad.

[Anonymous No.4315337]

>/pol/ disappears just as people who actually know something about genetics start posting
Goddammit, that was getting interesting. I hate coincidences.

[Anonymous No.4315339]

>>4315335
Yeah, just like some religious idiots spurt "durr if there's no God why aren't you raping children right now" as if the fact that morality might be man-made would make it matter somewhat less.

[Anonymous No.4315345]

>>4315310
>hegemonic control
Considering that all the hispanic political group's politics are an amalgamation of LATINO STRONK and PLS GIV MONY WE R 2POOR4SKOOL, I guess hegemonic control is not having enough extra chromosomes and estrogen to be able to pass as an alien.

Retard.

[Anonymous No.4315347]

>>4315282

You don't even recognise that you're presupposing genes are the only possible explanatory factors, do you?

Try to be less stupid when you're trying to call out other people on their stupidity.

[Anonymous No.4315348]

>>4315336
Ah, no worries. This stuff always gets heated. Yeah, I think it's open at the moment and I suspect it'll be that way for a good while.

[Anonymous No.4315352]

>>4315347
Simple minded people tend to think everything is innate, and genetics unfortunately offers a myriad of intellectual shortcuts for morons to argue about innateness.

[Anonymous No.4315356]

>>4315337

I feel that this should be capped so that we don't have to go through all of this each time /pol/ climbs out of its box.

[Anonymous No.4315357]

>>4314837
>>4314865
>>4314820
It is a thought crime.

Your speech is being used as evidence you have forbidden thoughts.

Just as saying "this is a robbery, give me the money in the safe" would be used as evidence that you were comitting the act of bank robbery.

[Anonymous No.4315363]

>>4315357
You don't know what thoughtcrime is. Nobody is monitoring your every gesture and your every word in order to detect any evidence of jew shit talking, probably because most people don't care much about jews. That's the point of thoughtcrime: your thoughts are haunting you so bad that sooner or later they come out on their own, just as Parsons shit talked about Big Brother in his sleep.

[Anonymous No.4315367]

>>4315357

Actually, no, if we're talking about places like Germany here. The crime consists in propagating harmful misinformation among a population, not in the thought itself.

It's perfectly legal to think anything you like, it's just that you aren't allow to express something deemed both radically false and radically harmful in a PUBLIC forum.

[Anonymous No.4315368]

>>4315059
>mencius moldbug
regardless of intelligence, I don't think he's argued for any political position other than monarchy and he's not really someone I would point to as either left-wing or right-wing. I haven't read very much by him, but it's foolish to categorize him with other right-wing thinkers when he has absolutely no influence on them

in general it's frustrating that people only understand their politics through negation instead of a way forward, then blame their opponents for seeing them as "retrograde"; at least leftism moves forward by inertia. I'd like to see a rightist political strategy beyond "recognize that leftists are wrong about many of their positions," even in this very thread

[Anonymous No.4315372]

>>4315363

obviously it's a form of thought crime...no need to be autistic and be 100% literal

[Anonymous No.4315373]

>>4315367
>It's perfectly legal to think anything you like, it's just that you aren't allow to express
Only because they cannot read our thoughts.

As soon as they have evidence you think forbidden thoughts (i.e. you express them) they arrest you.

It's thought crime. The speech is used as evidence of your illegal thinking.

[Anonymous No.4315375]

>>4315363
if rightists relentlessly call my opinion censorship and thoughtcrime to the point that I don't share it in public, is that censorship and thoughtcrime?

[Anonymous No.4315378]

>>4315372
No. You are still free to think whatever you wish. I'm perhaps being a bit of a pedant but right-wing morons need to stop with the 1984 metaphor when it obviously doesn't apply.

>>4315375
No because nobody is arresting you or torturing you for having these thoughts.

[Anonymous No.4315379]

>>4315375
Not unless they arrest you for expressing your thoughts.

[Anonymous No.4315382]

>>4315378
>You are still free to think whatever you wish.
You aren't. As soon as they find out you have these thoughts you get prosecuted for them.

[Anonymous No.4315385]

>>4315382
>As soon as they find out you have these thoughts
But that's retarded, no one cares about your thoughts.

[Anonymous No.4315393]

>>4315373

Are you arguing that certainly thoughts CURRENTLY are illegal, or that they WOULD be made illegal if there existed the means to enforce those laws? Because your first and second lines seem to contradict each other.

In point of fact, your second line isn't even true.

Read these extracts from the German legal code and note the references to PUBLIC peace:

>(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 6 subsection (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.

>(4) Whoever publicly or in a meeting disturbs the public peace in a manner that assaults the human dignity of the victims by approving of, denying or rendering harmless the violent and arbitrary National Socialist rule shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. (...)[24]

Conclusion: you're full of shit.

[Anonymous No.4315396]

>>4315385
They care enough to pass thought crime laws and enforce them.

In Canada people accused of thought crimes used to not even get a fair trial. They were hauled before a tribunal of far left whackjobs with an axe to grind against straight white males, who had the power to unilaterally fine you or sentence you to prison for 3 years based on just their feelings.

The Conservatives stopped that so now the police have to actually arrest you. We still have thought crimes.

[Anonymous No.4315398]

>>4315396
You need to stop with the whiny "it's so hard to be a straight white male" rant and explain what the hell you're on about.

[Anonymous No.4315400]

>>4315393

The way Germany interprets its thought crimes is much more devious than you think. Simply questioning the figures verbally is enough to land you in jail.

It's happened many times.

[Anonymous No.4315401]

>>4315400

Frankly, I'm not inclined to take your word for it, considering that you obviously have an agenda here.

[Anonymous No.4315403]

>>4315393
That's a bit like saying "I'm not banning freedom of movement, I'm just banning you from leaving your house!"

It is illegal to communicate your thoughts. That is banning thoughts.

[Anonymous No.4315405]

>>4315403

No, it's illegal to communicate them in certain contexts.

A more appropriate analogy would be: "I'm not banning freedom of movement, I'm just banning you from going into that building".

[Anonymous No.4315408]

>>4315398

It's obvious what he is talking about, what part of it confuses you?

[Anonymous No.4315411]

>>4315408
What does he mean by "thought crime"?

[Anonymous No.4315413]

>>4315403
No it's not, it's banning their communication in public or 'in a meeting' (whatever that means).

Fun fact, though: the term 'thoughtcrime' is actually used by authorities in China to describe dissidents.

[Anonymous No.4315414]

>>4315405
>it's illegal to communicate them in certain contexts.
It's illegal to communicate them at all.

There is no context where you can express skepticism of the holocaust and not fall afoul of German thought crime laws.

They have even tried to extradite people from other countries for expressing skepticism of holocaust fairy tales.

[Anonymous No.4315415]

>>4315414
Germans deny holocaust all the time on krautchan, /int/ and the like, what the hell are you on about?

[Anonymous No.4315416]

>>4315408
No it isn't. Not everyone is so familiar with Canadian legal history that
>They were hauled before a tribunal of far left whackjobs with an axe to grind against straight white males, who had the power to unilaterally fine you or sentence you to prison for 3 years based on just their feelings
makes sense to them. What is it referring to?

[Anonymous No.4315420]

>>4315413
but China's censorship is more liberal than other countries insofar as they tend to only arrest people for planning gatherings rather than simply discussing unacceptable topics
I'm not particularly educated on the issue, though

[Anonymous No.4315421]

>>4315411
A crime where there is no criminal action other than expression of forbidden thoughts.

It's very simple to understand.

> it's banning their communication in public or 'in a meeting' (whatever that means).

It means you and at least one other person, moron.

When it is illegal to express your thoughts, IT'S THOUGHT CRIME!

[Anonymous No.4315423]

>>4315415
People infringe copyright all the time too. Does that mean copyright laws don't exist?

Your argumentation is such drivel I am a bit baffled by it.

[Anonymous No.4315424]

>>4315401

Bishop Williamson questions the main story in a TV interview.

German court fines him $12,000 for these statements and thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/26/british-bishop-holocaust-fine

[Anonymous No.4315425]

>>4315423
The point is that they aren't being arrested or tortured or shot for posting shit on the internet.

[Anonymous No.4315426]

Good thing I live in the land of the free and have an actual constitution.

[Anonymous No.4315428]

>>4314575

I like you, OP.

[Anonymous No.4315429]

>>4315424
>>4315424
>German court fines him $12,000 for these statements and thoughts.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM


Why does it cost MONEY to say certain things about history....Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.4315430]

>>4315414
>>4315421

Jesus, it's like talking to pic related.

I'm out, should have known better than to try and reason with /pol/.

[Anonymous No.4315431]

>>4315425
They would get arrested if the police catch them, as they are comitting thought crimes according to German law.

[Anonymous No.4315433]

>>4315420
Dude, they've criminalised 'spreading rumours' online. And unlike Germany, in China it is not even remotely clear what it is you're not allowed to discuss- if it can be considered 'harmful to national interests' by whoever's locking you up, that's good enough.

[Anonymous No.4315437]

>>4315430

refer
>>4315424

[Anonymous No.4315442]

>>4315430
You are leaving because you put your foot in your mouth by not realizing "meeting" means talking to anyone other than yourself.

You don't have the class to admit you were wrong. These are clearly thought crime laws.

[Anonymous No.4315469]

>>4315442
Not the same anon, but isn't this a point of definition? To my mind what makes 'thoughtcrime' in 1984 distinctive is that it specifically criminalises unspoken thought. Take away the 'unspoken' part and you're left with the criminalisation of certain kinds of speech or writing, which AFAIK every government ever has done and which doesn't really need a new word like 'thoughtcrime'.

[Anonymous No.4315476]

>>4315469

since speech is just an expression of thought, its true that anti speech crimes are just proto-anti-thought crimes

it's specially a thought crime in this case, when the only thing in question is an intellectual assessment of a historical event

[Anonymous No.4315481]

Bishop Williamson expresses a thought.
German court fines him $12,000 for these thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/26/british-bishop-holocaust-fine

[Anonymous No.4315483]

>>4315469
(although I suppose the German example is fairly distinctive in the modern era in that it's an opinion on history, not a direct attack on the government or an ethnic group or whatever else. It seems more like religious heresy than anything else, really)

[Anonymous No.4315504]

>>4315483
>It seems more like religious heresy than anything else, really

keep turning those wheels, you'll get it eventually

[Anonymous No.4315514]

>>4315504
atlastItrulysee.jpg

Disliking dumb censorship and disliking rightwingers are not mutually exclusive, if that's what you're getting at.

[Anonymous No.4315567]

>>4314826
>biggest city in germany

you couldn't even be arsed to write out 'düsseldorf'? or let me guess - you don't even know its name

top lel clapistani

[Anonymous No.4315572]

>>4315514
...having said that, the modding here bugs me. There was a legitimate conversation about a book going on in that other thread, mods. Some of us actually enjoy arguing with /pol/ and nuking them on sight kind of spoils that.

[Anonymous No.4315576]

>>4315572
(unless that was the OP, not the mods, in which case carry on)

[Anonymous No.4315586]

>>4315567
>you couldn't even be arsed to write out 'düsseldorf'

>thinking dusseldorf is a relevant city

[Anonymous No.4315588]

>>4315586
thatwasthejoke.jpg

I think.

[Anonymous No.4315592]

>>4315476
moar

[Anonymous No.4315594]

>>4315588
correct

[Anonymous No.4315609]

>>4314760
This, basically. Right-wingers are eager to appropriate liberal democratic discourses about >muh freedom of speech but somehow never take the paradox of tolerance into account.

[Anonymous No.4315633]

>>4315609
what the fuck?

you can >greentext in the middle of a sentence now?

[Anonymous No.4315657]

you should have known better than to use only the holocaust as yoru example. leave the edgy hit till lat, after they have had other examples and warmed to the concept.

[Anonymous No.4315668]

>>4315657
this, using holocaust or any other very well known thing as your example on "this is how they are lying to us" will just make you seem like you want to seem controversial and edgy.

[Anonymous No.4315671]

>>4315657
yeah, the holocaust should only be used as a anatomy of a murder-style coup de grâce that leaves the room speechless, for better or worse

ya blew it op

[Anonymous No.4315679]

>>4315657
To be fair, though, if OP's actually somewhere where it's illegal the Holocaust is the biggest deal. I can't think of other examples in the western world in which the statement of a historical opinion is illegal.