/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9868479]

I think one of the most striking things about this guy's essay was all the people claiming it was immaturely written, or a rant, or written by an obvious idiot. When multiple biology professors have claimed it's pretty much all accurate and consistent with accepted research and the guy himself went to Harvard and also did research at MIT and Princeton and graduated near the top of his class at UIUC.

It really puts in to perspective what an actual smart guy is like and what people have been claiming intelligence is. Smart people don't "critique". They don't feel the need to fill their works with half assed broad brush wide ranging cultural commentary. They are never snarky. They haven't studied English literature or critical theory. They don't mention that they read the Greeks or Nietzche or pretend that all good ideas started with them. They don't feel the need to package everything in to a narrative- they see discrete points as worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.9868495]

STEMfags don't have a liberal arts education? Wow.

[Anonymous No.9868507]

I believe that there are approximately 10 people who have actually read his memo while the rest of us rely on our partisan hacks of choice to tell us what to think about it.

[Anonymous No.9868511]

Here we see the current state of our societies. Outrage after outrage, fuelled by two increasingly fanatic sides. I hope it will result into nothing, but for the coming years I will still be tortured by the anti-intellectual drivel and emotional madness that drives the media.

Popular media and giving the plebians a platform were a mistake. Will read it out of interest anyway.

[Anonymous No.9868552]

>>9868507
And even less read Trump's leaked phone transcripts. Everyone would rather die in ignorance.

[Anonymous No.9868554]

>>9868479
I think that the extreme brevity and lightness of his memo was more due to being terrified of the powers that be potentially coming down on him than any belief in the superiority of clear and simple thought. Not that it did him any good though.

>>9868507
It's about five minutes worth of reading and probably the most inoffensive centrist piece of cuckery you'll ever see.
>m-m-maybe prioritizing hires by race is racist and hurts the company
>no I'm sorry
>pls don't hurt me my kangz and kweenz
>but i have some science
>we still like science don't we
>a tech company can't be 90% Human Resources staff diversity hires
>did I mention I'm not racist or sexist
>pls no buly

[Anonymous No.9868561]

>>9868511

[Anonymous No.9868570]

>>9868552
Quick gesalt?

[Anonymous No.9868587]

This whole situation is an example of true anti-intellectualism. We tend to think that it's about how "being dumb/ignorant is good" or how everyone thinks they know more than actual researchers.

In reality, anti-intellectualism starts from the top and goes down: not only do the peers of a researcher talk down to his ideas, they refuse to even engage with them seriously. The public, even with access to what he originally said, is somehow unable to critically and/or objectively consider the original view, preferring instead to just follow the trends of those who they deify as intellectuals -- who are, in actuality, just talking heads not worth trusting for even a second.

The biggest fault of the information era is the power given to "summarizers", who frequently do nothing more than summarize publicly-available information and disseminate it.

[Anonymous No.9868589]

>>9868479
>people who howl with the wolves don't even know what they're talking about
Every time. By definition, if they're joining a mass movement to signal virtue, it's not after having used high-quality analytical skills, good faith, nor personal judgement. These people aren't even individuals. They're cogs and drones.

>>9868554
Yes, the memo is incredibly mild and prudent, but for hardcore "liberals" (who haven't read it by the way, so why bother being mild?) it's still too much.

[Anonymous No.9868598]

>>9868479
>When multiple biology professors have claimed
on quillette, breitbart associated blog, but let's give it a chance, one of them

>Again, though, most of these sex differences are moderate in size and in my view are unlikely to be all that relevant to the Google workplace

but then he goes to agree with the memo, because google is..turning to orwellian nightmare or something? o la la

[Anonymous No.9868606]

>>9868507
It's not like it's a secret or hard to read. I found and read it just the other day. It's written in plain English and the ideas are organized in a simple, logical way. He obviously put a lot of effort into making it both readable and inoffensive, to try and make his opinion accessible to more than just those who already agree with him. It is essentially an olive branch. It does not surprise me it has been spurned.

[Anonymous No.9868635]

His obvious mistake was making any claim whatsoever about gender, and there are a lot of them. He flat out says "women are neurotic." He was probably too unselfaware to realize what he had written and why any workplace would have fired him for such things. Some people are booksmart but completely socially retarded: let this be a lesson to any who think they can share their uncensored opinions in the workplace without being reprimanded.

[Anonymous No.9868643]

Google had to fire him : lack of retaliation would have been "proof" of a racist/gender bias culture within Google - this being a weapon of choice for any employee willing to sue Google on such motives.

[Anonymous No.9868648]

His most important point which no one in the media addressed is that the gender imbalance is not the result of "injustice". Maybe it just happens that the ratio of male to female engineers will be 70/30.

[Anonymous No.9868652]

>>9868635
>If threesomes are't your thing, try a 2nd Amendment Fan Page or 10 Things I Hate About Senators and see if your job supports your individuality. See how close to the edge you can get before Facebook itself censors you. It is tempting to see this as a "war on men" because Randi tests as a genetic female, or a war on conservatives because Randi sounds like a "capitalism with a human face"-progressive who ran pass interference for the DNC in 2008, but I hope you can see that the force would equally oppose anything that was slightly outside of the mainstream. Randi needs the job to tell her she is valuable, and the job wants frictionless employees. The war isn't on men or women, it is on individual freedom, it is regression to the mean by suppressing the mean, where mean is defined by its deviation from SFW, according to W.

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/03/who_can_know_how_much_randi_zu.html

[Anonymous No.9868659]

>>9868561
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.9868665]

great awkward moment when one of those alt-right youtube clowns interviewed him and Damore started talking about how the right denies science with regard to climate change and evolution. The youtube douche has this awkward look like "i thought he was 'ourguy' wtf"

[Anonymous No.9868674]

>>9868479
It's like 10 pages of things I thought should be obvious? Like I was honestly very surprised at how everyone got angry over literally nothing. Well, not really surprised but I thought there would be a bit more, I dunno, typical alt-right stuff in there.
>He claims women are more emotional, which has benefits and downsides.
>Several women don't show up the next day at work because they are to uncomfortable.

Even the lefty paper that my roommate gets delivered was calling bullshit on the firestorm around this dude.

[Anonymous No.9868687]

>>9868665
haven't read his memo yet, but this is pretty heartening. i'm tired of every public figure in america being a blind ideologue.

[Anonymous No.9868691]

Liberal media outlets are claiming the memo says that women are biologically unsuited to engineering. But if you read the memo, the point he is trying to make is that in accounting for why there is not a 50/50 split in tech and leadership positions between men and women it isn't enough to assume it's all the product of sexist discrimination. Empirical evidence shows that on AVERAGE (sry but I have to highlight this becasue women are making it about themselves as INDIVIDUALS and completely misreading his work) men and women have distinct mental profiles. Ergo it's inappropriate to continue with these affirmative action style programs since they are attacking a non existent problem. There is no real sexist discrimination. And aggregate differences in cognition, lifestyle choices, interests, etc are not inherently problematic. And can't even be remedied by these programs without creating serious problems. Sounds reasonable to me.

[Anonymous No.9868714]

>>9868665

It makes the attacks on him all the more bizarre because it's crystal clear from the memo that he's a liberal. Not only does he mention it outright but he devotes a good quarter of the memo to suggesting ways that we could increase the number of women in tech that don't involve discriminating against white people. I can't blame people for not reading it but the media has no excuse. They are straight up lying to people when they lead others to believe the memo is sexist in any way.

[Anonymous No.9868740]

>>9868635

No he doesn't "flat out say" that women are neurotic. See for yourself:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

>Personality differences
>Women, on average, have more:

>Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).

>-This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Then he links to this to support this statement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits

I do wonder if some people are capable of understanding the difference between "on average women are more neurotic" and "all women are neurotic." It's clear from the context that this is not even meant to be taken negatively in any way. He's simply laying out the facts.

[Anonymous No.9868749]

>>9868714
Liberals are about 2 weeks away from being Nazis.
>>9868561
This is the worst countersignal meme I've seen, and I've seen plenty. It was made by someone that unironically believes in "American democracy" and there can't be a bigger idiot test than that.

[Anonymous No.9868762]

>>9868714
Honestly if he had not made a biological argument against women in tech or executive positions he may have gotten his desire for a more open dialogue. His argument that conservative people in Google are "closeted" in fear because Google leans left is a bad choice of word given their public stances.

[Anonymous No.9868764]

>>9868635
He means "neurotic" according to the OCEAN personality test, which is the scientific standard for evaluating personality.

[Anonymous No.9868765]

>>9868749
Trump's victory renewed my belief in American democracy. It shows that the "wrong" candidate can win after all.

[Anonymous No.9868768]

link to the initial essay?

[Anonymous No.9868769]

>>9868740
Right, and what I meant was that using the word neurotic to describe women was perceived as not kosher by the Google powers that be, as anyone with sense could have guessed that it would be. As I said, he probably did not recognize that this would be the perception. He probably does think he's laying out innocent facts, but you can't just talk about some things at work and expect to still be employed. He was too socially dumb at best to work in a place where he had to interact with people.

[Anonymous No.9868770]

>>9868762
>if he had not made a biological argument against women in tech

considering he was a biology researcher at elite institutions for most of his adult life he probably didn't realize how anti-intellectual and anti-science most americans actually are.

[Anonymous No.9868772]

>>9868768
See first link of >>9868740.

[Anonymous No.9868776]

It is tame. He cites psychology today which I would avoid, though I read one of the blogs on there. He cites autism man Simon Baron-Cohen, but I take the imprinted brain theory over the extreme male brain theory.
>>9868665
That makes me glad, and like the guy. Many people seem to turn into conformists in order to avoid exclusion by both sides. I hope we don't lose a middle ground, though on some issues there isn't.

[Anonymous No.9868777]

>>9868762

The biological or psychological facts are not for or against any argument by themselves so it's ridiculous for anyone to get offended over them. Why is it a bad idea to refer to conservatives as being in the closet when they can't be open about their beliefs? It's a perfectly apt description.

[Anonymous No.9868778]

>>9868764
Go ahead and say women are neurotic according to biology. Men and women will get very offended and if you said it in a public place you will no longer be employed. Science makes not an iota of difference when it comes to emotional reaction.

[Anonymous No.9868779]

>>9868769
>>9868769
>you can't just talk about some things at work and expect to still be employed.

this thought always goes through my mind when i advocate lsd use to students, afterwards i think "oh shit i'm dead", but apparently advocating the benefits of illegal mind altering drugs isn't as bad as writing a memo summarizing recent biology research as i've suffered no negative consequences

[Anonymous No.9868780]

>>9868772
Is that the INITIAL essay?

I skimmed it and it seemed like a response to the backlash from the initial essay.

[Anonymous No.9868785]

>>9868780
he added an intro page at the beginning, the rest is the same

[Anonymous No.9868788]

>>9868769

I'm not okay with treating people like children who can't handle certain words. You and other people perceived it as him calling all women neurotic but your wrong. If you can't read or you misread certain things that's your problem, not anyone elses.

His job involved hiring people, and if merely laying out facts to support a proposed change in policy that is entirely pertinent to the job he was assigned to do is enough to get fired then we're in a lot of fucking trouble as a society.

[Anonymous No.9868791]

I was skimming though this thread at HN yesterday and reading some of the comments is infuriating.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952787
Half of the posts are high school tier at best. Why do STEM guys lack even basic philosophy skills?


>>9868507
I've read it (without the references), it's a short read.
Basically at the most extreme it's what you'd expect from the "alt-light" sphere of libertarian-to-slightly-conservative Americans (Molyneux, Peterson, Milo, Sargon, ...). Or in other words what was considered common sense 10 years ago, but is now considered edgy because of SJWs.

A proper intellectual could challenge parts of that memo, but he'd challenge the SJWs even more.


>>9868665
I doubt he was interviewed by anyone from the alt-right. Get your terminology straight.

[Anonymous No.9868792]

>believes in meritocracy
>lied about having a PHD

Wew lad

[Anonymous No.9868796]

>>9868479
>essay

[Anonymous No.9868800]

>>9868796
yes, it was a screed, rant, manifesto, mein kampf 2.0, but absolutely NOT an essay, oh no...

[Anonymous No.9868833]

>women may be a bit emotional, you know
>REEEEE FIRE HIM NOW I'M LIKE TOTALLY OFFENDED REEEEEEEEEEE I'M SO MAD I'M TAKING A DAY OFF

[Anonymous No.9868835]

He wrote another less controversial essay in the 2000s about ways to increase efficiency that has been sadly overlooked. It contained such gems as advocating increased consumption of oats to reduce time needed to produce a stool.

[Anonymous No.9868848]

>>9868765
((((wrong)))) you are getting played faggot

[Anonymous No.9868869]

I don't even know who that is. Is this about another public outrage ritual? What the hell are you Americans doing?

[Anonymous No.9868870]

>>9868835
>oats

[Anonymous No.9868879]

>>9868507
It's like 7 pages long with size 14 font and a lot of pictures.

[Anonymous No.9868881]

>>9868777
I mean in a rhetorical way that they were bad choices; not that they were necessarily inaccurate or incorrect. The audience he was speaking to he acknowledges is quick to dismiss what is said based on unconscious bias. He should have not provided easy ammunition to use against him. His appeals to a more open dialogue on those biases however had potential to appeal to the language of diversity they already use.

[Anonymous No.9868883]

>>9868869

A guy offers less retarded ways to increase the number of women in tech so of course he gets labeled a sexist by the media and the leftist lemmings.

[Anonymous No.9868889]

>>9868869
>What the hell are you Americans doing?
They're being distracted from real problems that could challenge the system.

[Anonymous No.9868892]

>>9868791
He was on Molyneux's podcast

[Anonymous No.9868894]

>>9868892
Moly is not alt-right.

[Anonymous No.9868897]

>>9868665
But virtually everyone on the "alt-right" accepts evolution and anthropomorphic caused climate change.
It's the young left that are now anti-science.

[Anonymous No.9868905]

>>9868714
lol bizzare? where have you been? this is how the media works

[Anonymous No.9868906]

>>9868665
...you mean Jordan Peterson? Is he "alt-right" to you?

[Anonymous No.9868911]

>>9868881

I would agree that they might be bad choices for persuading people. I don't think that's really what he was trying to accomplish though. This is conjecture of course but I think he was trying to make certain people look stupid. He set the bait knowing that leftists would overreact and prove the points he was making, that these people are ideological totalitarians who are utterly close-minded. He was realistic in his goals. He wasn't attempting to persuade the unpersuadable bigots on the left but instead he was targeting the centrists or slightly left leaning people. As far as that goes mission accomplished. This was a test for progressives and they failed badly.

[Anonymous No.9868912]

>>9868879
Point still stands

[Anonymous No.9868928]

>>9868554
This

[Anonymous No.9868934]

I'm watching him on Memerson right now and unsurprisingly he's getting a lot of attaboys. The whole thing is very JBP-esque.

[Anonymous No.9868962]

>>9868869
They're fighting the SJWs, because they're convinced that this is the most important issue right now (while working double shifts to pay for the medical bills after getting shot by a nigger from across the street).

[Anonymous No.9868983]

>>9868962
well SJWs want to import infinitely more niggers to shoot us

[Anonymous No.9868990]

>>9868643
I' ve just read the whole memo and it seems to me that Google is shitting itself at the idea of confronting mainstream left leaning people, which it seems are now infected with sjw ideology.

I found the memo to be very well articulated, and very open minded, certainly not offensive.

But since I'm a white male, I'm an oppressor so guess it makes me an oppressor so I must be wrong somewhere.

Full memo
https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f

[Anonymous No.9868994]

>>9868552
>no link

[Anonymous No.9869012]

>>9868934
Exactly, very JPB esque. I hate to say it, but "it's happening"

[Anonymous No.9869032]

>calls the gender wage gap a "myth"

ouch

If everything he said up to that point was semi-reasonable, then that was probably the last straw. It's one of the few myths that people still vehemently believe is real (and, due to things like women not arguing for higher pay, "seem" to be true). I can imagine that killed any good will that left-leaning readers had, assuming they got to that point.

[Anonymous No.9869037]

>>9869032
oh god, now that I'm reading it, the whole "Why We're Blind" is likely the most incendiary part of the essay.

[Anonymous No.9869051]

>>9868554
I think the response to what he wrote shows that he made the right call in not going 1488 with it.

[Anonymous No.9869072]

>>9869032
It is a myth. Two second Internet search can confirm.

[Anonymous No.9869107]

>>9869032
plenty of left leaning people appreciate facts and don't believe in this myth.

[Anonymous No.9869119]

>>9868691
It's a little ridiculous to acknowledge that males and females are very different in their physical forms and capacities and to say that these forms and capacities are the product of a long standing sex-specific selection process. And at the same time say that men and women have the same psyche, and that obedience to social messages is entirely responsible for the observable differences in their respective psychological characters. Jesus Christ these ideologicals have no shame.

[Anonymous No.9869146]

>>9869119
It is also interesting to postulate that men and women are exactly the same, while also predicating that women represent "diversity". How can they be different and the same?

>Google: we must hire more women in the workplace because they're different, and this difference is precious to us!!!!
>Damore: okay, here is why the women are different, and how we should hire more of them
>Google: OMG SO OUTRAGEOUS AND SEXIST WE'RE JUST ALL THE SAME AND YOU'RE FIRED LMAO

[Anonymous No.9869150]

Is the philosophical treatise of the 21st century the workplace memo?

[Anonymous No.9869154]

>>9869032
Does it really? Even Vox released a video explaining why the the popular catchphrase of the wage gap is actually really dumb, and the problems lie elsewhere not in salary.

[Anonymous No.9869178]

>>9868778
>common fucking sense is now becoming improper to say
This shit is going too far. We don't need biology to know that women are generally more neurotic, more emotional, more passive, and less rational than men. It's the wisdom of fucking past millenniums being suppressed by a stupid minority of loud ideologues.

[Anonymous No.9869194]

>>9869178
nothing that is unquantifiable matters anymore

[Anonymous No.9869199]

>>9869194
Yeah. I'm not really that angry (it's hard to convey emotional nuance through a Balinese textile-weaving board obviously), more just amused and sad at the state of Western civilization today and its unnecessary worship of women.

[Anonymous No.9869209]

>>9868897
Everyone accepts evolution, even the Christians. I wouldn't say everyone accepts anthropomorphic climate change however.

[Anonymous No.9869243]

He's basically just a heretic isn't he? I think instinctually know that what he said is true, so they'd rather just silence him than have to deal with addressing his points

[Anonymous No.9869262]

The thing is, even if you think that what he said is factually incorrect, why wouldn't you just deal with it by simply rebutting his points? Why get him fired and make this big fuss?

[Anonymous No.9869265]

>>9869243
Thats the whole point of how the left treats issues.

[Anonymous No.9869279]

>>9869262
Brand image + fear of possible discrimination lawsuits making an argument out of this guy not being sanctioned

[Anonymous No.9869331]

>>9868990
>it seems to me that Google is shitting itself at the idea of confronting mainstream left leaning people, which it seems are now infected with sjw ideology.
That is their targeted demographic, and where the money is, so it only makes sense that they want to appeal to them.

[Anonymous No.9869344]

I think the most striking thing about this essay was the sheer autism
Would be surprised if he wasn't a diversity hire desu

[Anonymous No.9869350]

>>9868507
I read it, it was well thought out and all the liberal/twitter outrage is pretty much unwarranted. He just stated what everyone knows, more men are suited for programming than women, but there are quotas that people want to fill so a female with less merit might get hired over a guy who is more competent.

[Anonymous No.9869351]

>>9868479
Who the fuck is this? Why dopes everyone know him?

[Anonymous No.9869357]

>>9868791
>Molyneux, Peterson, Milo, Sargon,...
>One of those actually published legit books and research and is not just a blatant pseud

[Anonymous No.9869359]

>>9868894
Yeah he is some arrogant scam artist, thats what he is.

[Anonymous No.9869486]

>>9869357
Sure, but what "unites" them is that they're all publicly opposed to SJWs.
(I actually think that most people are opposed to SJWs, so them being grouped into some "special" category is a bit silly, but oh well.)

[Anonymous No.9869491]

>>9869150
Sadly. Suits 'flagged' attention spans: legion.

[Anonymous No.9869759]

One thing that strikes is that Damore is "a huge fan" of Peterson (he says that at the end of the interview).

So we can see this event as a successful attempt by a well rounded mind to put into practice what Peterson has been advocating for over a year now.

[Anonymous No.9869792]

It is badly written, but mostly correct.

There are sex differences across numerous personality traits, and the explanation is likely evolutionary/biological - evidenced by studies showing that these sex differences are *more* prevalent in more progressive countries.

[Anonymous No.9869802]

>>9869279
>Brand image
Much more damaged since Google fired him, which causes the entire world's media to talk about it instead of three SJWs on their blog

>fear of possible discrimination lawsuits
Punish those who leaked the memo lol

[Anonymous No.9869812]

>>9869209
well the alt-right and /po/ attract different types desu. I mean, there are people on pol who think jesus was white and israel was full of nordics

[Anonymous No.9869813]

>>9869759

Which is 'gay af desu', when memery bleeds into reality. That is pure simulation.

[Anonymous No.9869830]

>>9868765
>Trump's victory renewed my belief in American democracy.
Exactly as it was meant to. The plan worked perfectly. Well done Trump, well done Hillary! You both played your roles beautifully.

[Anonymous No.9869832]

>>9869802
I insist on brand image : in India where women are treated like pieces of shit I'm pretty sure that it is perceived as extremely progressive, and as an example of how society should be, for the IT Bangalore middle class for instance. Google brand must be considered as global, not strictly western.

[Anonymous No.9869876]

Google is a jewish company. Jews view white men as their primary enemy. Jews and jewish companies therefore promote diversity in white countries to limit the power of white men. Complications arise because white men are responsible for 99% of all scientific and technological advancements. White men figure out the jewish diversity game is a sham and counter it with facts. Jews and jewish companies shut it down and attack white men.

None of this is very complicated if you understand our enemy, the jew.

[Anonymous No.9869895]

>>9869802
You have to fundamentally misunderstand google's target demographic if you believe that. Not firing him would tarnish their image in the eyes of young, progressive urbanites. They don't care if /pol/ types hate them.

[Anonymous No.9869899]

>>9869876
Booooooooorrrriiing. It's actual the lizard interdimensional shapeshifters. Google is one of their powerhouses of disseminating electronic soma to the masses.

[Anonymous No.9869917]

>>9869895
Google is a global jewish company that has no interest in winning favor among the miniscule beta male/purple haired dyke demographic. Its only interest is dictating what is acceptable to talk about in accordance with larger jewish interests.

[Anonymous No.9869929]

>>9869917
Jew argument is very poor dude

[Anonymous No.9869953]

>>9869929
Clearly, that's why you were able to counter it with such stellar argumentation of your own. Google is a jewish company, that's merely a fact.

[Anonymous No.9869960]

>>9869953
>it's the space rapists!
>that's stupid
>huuuurrrrr not an argument.

[Anonymous No.9869966]

>>9868479
Well, it *is* poorly written. What is saying is largely correct, but stylistically, at least, it's immature.

[Anonymous No.9869985]

>>9869960
You've now made two posts without an argument or counter-argument. Are you going to make it three?

To reiterate: Google is a jewish company and its actions against Damore and his memo reflect the larger jewish interests of displacing and attacking white men under the guise of diversity.

[Anonymous No.9869988]

>>9869966
It's meant to be simplified though.

Quick question for the thread, why does sexual dimorphism in mammals and the concrete fact (as studies on monozygotic twins separated at birth have conclusively prove) of biological determinism trigger leftypol fags and liberals so much? I know that hardcore leftists believe that all outcomes of human behavior are purely due to material circumstance according to them , but what do they gain in trying to shut down anyone who speaks the truth?

[Anonymous No.9869996]

>>9869985
Statement without proof.
Have a nice evening dude

[Anonymous No.9869999]

>>9869988
Changing times and more. Keep in mind that just two years ago leftists were relying on biological determinism to make the case for gay marriage (they were born that way, after all!).

[Anonymous No.9870008]

>>9869985
What makes google a Jewish company?

I think the more reasonable answer is the both employees and the target demographic of Google are educated people who have embraced the endorsed ideology of their schools. This has driven the company as a whole to embrace a leftist soft-authoritarianism.

[Anonymous No.9870020]

>>9869996
3/3 for non substantive posts, good work!

This recent example with Damore is a primary example of jewish behavior in regard to their anti-white diversity project. If you are white and still don't get it, you should consider the possibility that you just aren't that bright.

[Anonymous No.9870033]

The first thing I heard about this guy was a headline somewhere that said he argued that women are "biologically unfit" for tech jobs, but that's not even his thesis and that phrase doesn't occur anywhere in the text.

Now I'm not some Trumpian "muh fake news" faggot, but what the hell?

[Anonymous No.9870034]

>>9868479
The essay seemed like common sense desu. Good on him for at least trying to speak out.

[Anonymous No.9870038]

>>9870008
It is run by jews. "Soft leftist authoritarianism" isn't something that springs from the ether, it is a reflection of the nature of those in control of the institutions. When jews created and controlled the Soviet Union they implemented the same kind of thought crime policies, where those who questioned the doctrine of the state were punished. This is a middle eastern mindset. Arabs, the cousins of the jews, have the same authoritarian mindset.

[Anonymous No.9870062]

>>9869209
I know a good number of Christians that deny evolution straightforward. Hell, there's a growing faction of people today who wholeheartedly believe the earth is flat.

[Anonymous No.9870068]

>>9870038
On a scale of 1 to 10, how superior does it make you feel to believe in a theory that most people argue against as deluded bullshit?

[Anonymous No.9870070]

>>9870062
Whose fault do you think that is? Genuinely curious.

[Anonymous No.9870082]

>>9870068
Are you pretending to have a counter-argument here or are you just posturing?

[Anonymous No.9870097]

>>9870038
>When jews created and controlled the Soviet Union they implemented the same kind of thought crime policies, where those who questioned the doctrine of the state were punished.
Authoritarian states run by gentiles did the same thing? How far do you think you would get questioning the official doctrine would get you in Nazi Germany, or were they also Jewish?
>Arabs, the cousins of the jews, have the same authoritarian mindset.
Then it's amazing how the most notable authoritarian regimes were led by gentile Europeans and East Asians.

I agree with you that these issues are stemming from our institutions, but the reason they have embraced these positions is far more complex than "Jewish influence". It's impossible to have these discussions when you start jamming this schizophrenic trash into everyone's ears.

>>9870070
Not him. But I think it's the result of our awful educational system. As far as I'm concerned, it's so terrible that the anti-intellectualism and resentment of academics most people have is justified.

[Anonymous No.9870098]

>>9870038
Authoritarianism isn't exclusive to jews and arabs. Nazi Germany, Sparta, a large portion of Latin America, Russia: the shit is spread everywhere in the world and throughout time. You can't possibly link it all to Jewish subversiveness.

[Anonymous No.9870101]

>>9870068
Goml kid

[Anonymous No.9870105]

Poorly written, poorly reasoned, and poorly presented. Just very poor execution, all around. Should be fired purely on incompetency grounds.

[Anonymous No.9870108]

>>9870101
Did somebody earnestly make that graphic or is it supposed to be satire

[Anonymous No.9870123]

>>9870097
Mao was a Jew

[Anonymous No.9870132]

>>9870123
Yeah, I'm sure he was Bar Mitzvah'd and everything.

[Anonymous No.9870133]

>>9870097
This is simply a matter of you not understanding history. Things like fascism and national socialism were direct responses to jewish bolshevism that arose after western Europeans realized that jews were murdering ethnic Russians by the millions and were creating revolutionary fervor in their own nations. Europeans are not strict authoritatarians, no. There is more nuance in belief. Jews however are not like that.

>>9870098
See above. Authoritarian ideologies -- the "believe or you are a heretic" mentality, via jewish Christianity, jewish communism, or our current iteration of jewish liberal multiculturalism -- are fundamentally jewish. No one is going to say only jews are authoritarians, but jews are authoritarians. They are middle eastern semites, that's where this stems from.

[Anonymous No.9870134]

>>9868714
He claimed he was a classic liberal, quite different from a modern liberal.

[Anonymous No.9870146]

>>9870108
It's all real as far as I've checked references (1/4). Scary shit desu. Afraid to look thru the rest

[Anonymous No.9870164]

>>9870070
For the Christians? Militant religious thinking is something that's hard to defy: there are people out there who don't care for anything but the good book itself, and base their life around that. Even if you approached with the best arguments possible, it isn't likely that you're going to redirect the entire system of their belief onto something new, nor should you be inclined to try.
For the rest, it's mostly the education system, the branching out of secularist beliefs and the American spirit of individualism backing freedumbs that allow people to continue on believing whatever they want. Few people dare to question or learn because the public school structure is pretty shitty, and the colleges in place for after grad are exorbitantly overpriced to the point that you're basically gambling on your own intellect by going to one. The people that get caught in tons of student loan debt are the losers, but most of them are only really guilty of being ignorant to all this and as such pushed into a system that screws over more than it helps. That's my belief.

[Anonymous No.9870167]

More details from the horse's mouth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agU-mHFcXdw

[Anonymous No.9870177]

>>9870146
How do you function as an adult

[Anonymous No.9870186]

>>9868674
Have you never gotten up in your friends face like "why are you so mad bro?" which makes him get mad(der)? Have you never been roasted? It's the same concept. Saying "told ya you were mad" afterward is kinda dickish

[Anonymous No.9870187]

>>9868479
Source for the biology professors?

[Anonymous No.9870188]

>>9870132
Pretty much all of China's upper class is Jewish, read a fucking book dumbass

[Anonymous No.9870195]

>>9870082
One post avoiding my question. Try again.

[Anonymous No.9870200]

>>9868511
>fuelled by two increasingly fanatic sides
What's the second side? There was effectively no right wing until a couple of years ago. It only started to pick up momentum because clowns like you sit around and do nothing.

[Anonymous No.9870211]

>>9870133
>This is simply a matter of you not understanding history. Things like fascism and national socialism were direct responses to jewish bolshevism that arose after western Europeans realized that jews were murdering ethnic Russians by the millions and were creating revolutionary fervor in their own nations. Europeans are not strict authoritatarians, no. There is more nuance in belief. Jews however are not like that.
What about The reign of Terror, the absolute monarchs, and the rule of Cromwell? Were they all orchestrated by Jews too?

>>9870188
Sure thing. I was at Mao's bris and everything. Had front row seats, and got hit in the eye with some blood. Good times.
Is the Kim family also Jewish? How about the Japanese Imperial line? Pol Pot too?

[Anonymous No.9870229]

>>9870200
>There was effectively no right wing until a couple of years ago

baseless assertion.

[Anonymous No.9870233]

He doesn't help himself or his credibility much.

do you think he's a chantard?

[Anonymous No.9870234]

>>9870211
The French Revolution freed the jews and Cromwell was the guy who let them back in to England. Jews are very powerful people and have been wielding their influence in Europe since Charlemagne; to ignore that or brush their influence aside is intellectually dishonest, and doing that will cause you to continue to not understand the big picture regarding the world you live in.

[Anonymous No.9870243]

>>9870229
>baseless assertion.
Name five sucessful "right wing" leaders in America within the past century.
and do it without reddit spacing

[Anonymous No.9870246]

I wonder if a girl has ever touched his penis

[Anonymous No.9870247]

>>9868507
Just left to read it. Had to go on a right wing website to find it. Skimmed the essentials.

Seems like he was fired for pointing out what is literally just differential psychology 101 in Europe.

America, please calm down. This social bipolar disorder is getting out of hand.

[Anonymous No.9870254]

>>9870243
obama
trump
guy from infowars
moot

[Anonymous No.9870256]

>>9870247
>America, please calm down.
This. Be civilized like us.
*arrests person for hate speech*

[Anonymous No.9870263]

>>9870254
>forgot zuckerburg
disregarded

[Anonymous No.9870272]

>>9870256
I think you'll find that the bar for actual hate speech is pretty high in Europe.
You pretty much have to actively encourage people to go out there and attack whatever group of people you are riling against.
Just openly being a racist is perfectly legal.

[Anonymous No.9870290]

>>9870272
That isn't true. In fact, the threshold often falls far below casual racism. See David Irving's trial

[Anonymous No.9870293]

>>9870243
Your assertion that there have been no right wing leaders, or a right wing in general, for the last ~50 years is a fact that doesn't get brought up enough. The reason most whites are still so brainwashed by our system is because jews took over both sides but morphed the "right" into some abortion-centric, anti-science, pro-Israel, neoconservative monstrosity that didn't conserve anything. Read about the John Birch Society to understand how jews purged the real right and made it revolve around anything other than the interests of white people. The right until recently has been a joke because it was made to be that way by jews who oppose and want to suppress any articulation of white interests and exposure of the jewish problem.

[Anonymous No.9870294]

>>9868769
>As I said, he probably did not recognize that this would be the perception.

Lol. He knew exactly what the reaction would be. He had a lawyer on retainer and issued a complaint to the NLRB before he was fired to cover his ass. Now he's going to sue Google for firing him in response to a complaint to the NLRB, which is illegal. Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.9870297]

>>9870256
rights correlate to responsibilities.

you have the right to speech but the responsibility to not incite/cause harm.

>harm principle

welcome to civilisation.
to get arrested for "hate speech" is pretty difficult.

[Anonymous No.9870311]

>>9870297
Sticks and stones bitch

[Anonymous No.9870313]

>>9870272
Other poster is right, this is not true at all and the bar is very low in England, France, and Germany where people from tweeters to presidential candidates have been targeted and even jailed for petty offenses using so-called hate speech laws. Didn't a guy in England get thrown in jail for making a video of his dog sieg heiling?

[Anonymous No.9870315]

>>9870293
>jews took over both sides but morphed the "right" into some abortion-centric, anti-science, pro-Israel, neoconservative monstrosity that didn't conserve anything

Reagan is not jewish

[Anonymous No.9870322]

>>9870315
We're talking about the 60s, amigo. Reagan was a product of 70s/80s and of exactly that of which I spoke.

[Anonymous No.9870325]

>>9870293
>but morphed the "right" into some abortion-centric

What does that even mean? People have always been against the killing of babies.

[Anonymous No.9870344]

>>9870311
see...thats where millennials have gotten confused... they've taken the concept of harm caused by speech acts and interpreted it as being offended.

[Anonymous No.9870347]

>>9870146
I don't know if the Jews are behind this but the chart is fairly accurate

[Anonymous No.9870350]

>>9870233
I love the word chantard. It sounds French desu.

[Anonymous No.9870360]

>>9870290
This:
>>9870297
Free Speech does not stand alone and is not limitless. All basic rights and freedoms work in conjunction. Based on the age old principles of "My rights and freedoms end where your rights and freedoms begin."
You don't get to attack the basic rights of others while simultaneously appealing to the same.

I think you'll also find that Irving was a bit more than just being casually racist, m8.

>>9870313
[Citation Needed]

Also you don't get to confound investigations with actual convictions. The distinction is key.
If a politician actively uses Nazi rhetoric and speaks of race wars behind closed doors to other politicians, investigations are more than appropriate.

>>9870311
You can offend people all you want.
What you don't get to do is cause real harm.

It seems in the US, that distinction is blurred af right now.

[Anonymous No.9870361]

>>9870297
>rights correlate to responsibilities.
I've never heard of responsibility not to believe certain things. Mill himself would have a few arrest warrants today.
If that's European civilization, I'd rather stay a barbarian.

[Anonymous No.9870373]

>>9870325
It means the right became centered around social issues like abortion that were easy to blow up and use to divide the white public. Was not talking about abortion per se, though that was a major focal point because it could be pitted as an issue of women's choice/liberal progressivism vs evil white cis male patriarchal Christian society. The point being that the right got bogged down crusading for divisive social issues while the civilizational rug was being pulled out from under the feet of whites.

[Anonymous No.9870380]

>>9870293
>Read about the John Birch Society to understand how jews purged the real right and made it revolve around anything other than the interests of white people.
William F.Buckley wasn't Jewish. He also purged the Objectivists, and I bet you think they were a Jewish movement.
>>9870322
Was Reagan significantly different as governor in the 60s? Roe v. Wade was decided in '73, and that's when the evangelicals came out en masse.

[Anonymous No.9870386]

>>9870360
>Free Speech does not stand alone and is not limitless. All basic rights and freedoms work in conjunction. Based on the age old principles of "My rights and freedoms end where your rights and freedoms begin."
Your freedom not to hear what you don't like?
>It seems in the US, that distinction is blurred af right now
Not at all. We know the distinction perfectly well, and that is why this sort of barbarism comes only from private companies and not the gov't itself as in Europe.
See Holmes' opinion
>The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

[Anonymous No.9870395]

>>9870361
Dear lord, how about you read up on the basics of your own civilization?
Nobody can dictate what you believe. (German revolution: "Die Gedanken sind frei!")
Nobody can dictate what opinions you voice. (Privately at least, Freedom of Speech/Opinion)
Nobody is allowed to attack the basic rights of others. (Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, Art 4: „La liberté consiste à pouvoir faire tout ce qui ne nuit pas à autrui : ainsi l’exercice des droits naturels de chaque homme n’a de bornes que celles qui assurent aux autres Membres de la Société, la jouissance de ces mêmes droits. Ces bornes ne peuvent être déterminées que par la Loi.”
"Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus,
the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that
ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These
bounds may be determined only by Law.")

All democracies build upon these principles.

[Anonymous No.9870397]

>>9870146
>Frankfurt School
>wanting to destroy western culture

[Anonymous No.9870399]

>>9870360
>Nazi rhetoric
You mean pro-white rhetoric? You see, it's a testament to how hegemonic the left has been the last 50 years where being pro-white means you're automatically considered a notsee. People like this poster remain extremely indoctrinated, or they're jewish and thus intentionally promoting the idea that whites who stick up for their own interests are somehow evil for expressing completely normal ideas.

[Anonymous No.9870415]

>>9870380
You do not know your history if you aren't familiar with Buckley's connection to jewry. Your other point about Reagan is DOA. Leftist hegemony over the narrative was a product of the 60s, so of course these things came afterward.

[Anonymous No.9870418]

>>9870386
>Your freedom not to hear what you don't like?
You can offend me all you want.
You just don't get to tell me that I have less rights than you and especially don't get to try and convince others of that. Something that some "muh free speech" folks seem to get confused sometimes.
>Not at all.
Yes, it seems it is.
On the one side you have nuts who want to legislate the use of """offensive""" pronouns and on the other side you have people protecting the """rights""" of people to attack the basic rights of others.

[Anonymous No.9870425]

>>9868479
>They haven't studied English literature or critical theory. They don't mention that they read the Greeks or Nietzche or pretend that all good ideas started with them.

Nice job tucking the shitpost into one clause which retroactively enshittens the entire thing. Have a (you)

[Anonymous No.9870430]

>>9870395
>All democracies build upon these principles.
Ours certainly wasn't. Not reading a wall of text from someone who can't even do his homework.

[Anonymous No.9870436]

>>9870373

I think you're making a mistake in assuming that every issue can be compromised on, or that some issues should be compromised on. Abortion is not one of those issues, you're either okay with killing babies or your not.

I see this sort of thing a lot of with the more left leaning Republicans who think we should just drop the issue of abortion so we could appeal to more people but this demonstrates a complete ignorance of the issue. There is no middle ground or compromise on abortion for people like me who believe that all humans should be treated equally.

[Anonymous No.9870441]

>>9870418
The first half is not relevant and doesn't even merit response
>On the one side you have nuts who want to legislate the use of """offensive""" pronouns and on the other side you have people protecting the """rights""" of people to attack the basic rights of others.
What exactly are you on about? The supreme court consistently upholds freedom of speech. As for le ebil right winger using Madison and Jefferson's words to "oppress" you, I suspect they exist only in your waking dreams.

[Anonymous No.9870442]

>>9869350
>I read it, it was well thought out and all the liberal/twitter outrage is pretty much unwarranted.
>>9868554
>It's about five minutes worth of reading and probably the most inoffensive centrist piece of cuckery you'll ever see.
>>9868791
>Or in other words what was considered common sense 10 years ago, but is now considered edgy because of SJWs.

B-but cnn told me he said all women are biologically incapable of reading or writing and should be chained in their kitchens as God intended, which is of course literally racist

[Anonymous No.9870444]

>>9868561
Shit, well excuse me for not wanting to support either of the insane cults that are the modern left and right.

[Anonymous No.9870450]

>>9870444
Trips of truth.

[Anonymous No.9870468]

>>9868892
I lost sympathy for the dude when I learned he went on Molycult's show.

[Anonymous No.9870470]

>>9870436
Congratulations. You highlighted precisely why the Christian right became detested and easily out-maneuvered, as well as why your form of jewish Christian universalism is fundamentally no different than the jewish egalitarian liberalism that was engineered to replace it. Stop bowing down to a jew on a stick, friend.

[Anonymous No.9870471]

>>9870436

One of Trump's smarter moves in the campaign was realizing that abortion is a wedge-issue which swing both ways. Instead of "compromising" to satisfy the moderates, by say openly endorsing first or second trimester but opposing late-term "partial birth" abortions, which would still upset his evangelical base, he threw the ball into Clinton's court by daring her to make that compromise, knowing that she could even less afford to alienate her bulldyke radfem base than he could evangelicals, and knowing that the vast majority of Americans oppose late-term abortion. She duly fumbled the ball and it probably helped cement his narrow lead with white, old, Midwestern Catholics, which was critical to his EV win.

The same thing can be said about his hardline "immigration" policy. "Compromise" is only something that conservatives have to concede to liberals if they chose to concede, the tables can be turned, and have been on several issues (gun control and taxes). Those "appeasement" endorsers have simply bought into the "right side of history" meme, which asserts that all leftist policy is inevitable and can never be reversed, and stems from a Marxist outlook on social development.

[Anonymous No.9870474]

>>9870441
>The first half is not relevant and doesn't even merit response
>oh no, he flipped it on me, better ignore that

>What exactly are you on about?
I was talking about the social madness you guys are going through.
If you honestly don't see what the difference between offensive and actively inflammatory speech is, you are beyond help.
Do you think KKK speeches fall below freedom of speech, rather than hate-speech?
What would it take for you to say that the public speaking of someone are unconstitutional?

I'm genuinely interested.

[Anonymous No.9870476]

>>9870399
You're just promoting a vein of nazism which regurgitates this same schlock revolving around ''''Jewish'''' Bolshevism, which is in fact, drawn directly from Nazi ideologues who promoted the very same idea. They lifted it all from a book known as the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" which was assembled by Okhrana (the czarist secret police) and published in Russian newspapers during 1903 in order to strengthen the position of Nicholas II. It has been translated, and distributed largely out of a sort of timeless confirmation bias among skeptical lunatics like yourself.
Whether or not you're pro-white isn't the issue so much as your obsessive hatred for jews; which no doubt builds upon your conception of white supremacy. And i'm one who considers himself an anglophile, but you sir, have fallen for a ruse.

[Anonymous No.9870480]

>>9870470
>You highlighted precisely why the Christian right became detested and easily out-maneuvered, as well as why your form of jewish Christian universalism is fundamentally no different than the jewish egalitarian liberalism that was engineered to replace it.

He did none of that, and the "Jew on a stick" meme reveals a level of historical and theological ignorance which is as astounding as it is common among the ranks of pseuds

[Anonymous No.9870486]

[Anonymous No.9870491]

>>9870476
Jewish bolshevism was a real thing, you nut. Jews murdered tens of millions of ethnic Russians because they are a very sick and destructive people.

[Anonymous No.9870494]

>>9870491
Oh boy, here come the schizos again...

[Anonymous No.9870500]

>>9870480
You guys need to realize that your fantasy ideology was created by jews and is harmful toward whites. It's not ours, it's a desert religion and was from the beginning.

[Anonymous No.9870502]

>>9870474
>I was talking about the social madness you guys are going through.
What "madness" exists here but not in Europe? At least ours isn't legislated.
>If you honestly don't see what the difference between offensive and actively inflammatory speech is, you are beyond help
I perceive a difference. I don't feel the need to arrest people because of it.
>Do you think KKK speeches fall below freedom of speech, rather than hate-speech?
Depends entirely on the speech.
>What would it take for you to say that the public speaking of someone are unconstitutional?
I've already given you that. See Holmes
>Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition...But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas. . . . The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out

[Anonymous No.9870505]

>>9870474
>If you honestly don't see what the difference between offensive and actively inflammatory speech is, you are beyond help.

It is an irrelevant difference, legally, in the United States.

>Do you think KKK speeches fall below freedom of speech, rather than hate-speech?

KKK speeches are are constitutionally protected.

>What would it take for you to say that the public speaking of someone are unconstitutional?

Afaik the only limits are the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" scenario and a low degree of libel. Arguably, the dissemination of classified information could be defined as an area in which the first amendment is restricted.

How about you define "basic rights" and tell me upon what objective principle you have determined which "rights" are "basic"?

[Anonymous No.9870519]

>>9870502
>>9870505

Hey knock this greentext shit off right now

[Anonymous No.9870544]

>>9870519
>asking me to curb my autism
hello, reddit!

[Anonymous No.9870551]

>>9870494
Nothing schizo about the facts, Moshe; that's reserved for those trying to cover them up, which is what google as a jewish company is doing by pretending men and women are equal.

[Anonymous No.9870560]

>>9870500

Yes, for example you are displaying ignorance of the fact that "Jew" is a meaningless term, that "Judaism" as a religion (including sephardic, but especially Ashkenazi, sects) postdates Christ by many centuries, that it is an offshoot of a branch of Abrahamic faith which stood contrary to the Nazarenes (of whom Christ was a member) well before the birth of Christ, and that Judaism and Christianity have been at odds for all of their historical existence until the word "judeochristian" was invented a century or two ago. In fact, Islamic antisemitism is a much more recent historical development than christian antisemitism (and Judaic antichristianism), even more recent than the "judeo-christian" "reconciliation" which just so happened to coincide with the decline of Christianity and the rise of (mostly secular) Judaic cultural values in the west.

Judeo-Secular ideologies, such as neopaganism, secular humanists, radical atheism, only began to take off in the west after Christianity was purged of it's millenia-old anti-Semitic traditions.

The decline of Christianity has also coincided with the rise of western decadence into its current jewish-led and rabidly anti-christian form.

[Anonymous No.9870564]

>>9870551
It's fine to talk about Jewish conspiracy theories and all that... my problem with people like you is that:
1) You are 100% convinced that you're right. You're not open-minded although you sometimes will tactically pretend to be. Arguing with you is pointless.
2) You do dumb shit like calling people who disagree with you Jews even though you have no idea who they are.
3) You shit up every other thread with the same rambling.

[Anonymous No.9870567]

>>9870560
Look I hate the Kikes as much as the next guy but labelling all bad ideologies as "Judeo-Secular" is ridiculous. How the fuck can Neo-Paganism be Jewish in character

[Anonymous No.9870572]

>>9870360
words cant harm anyone

[Anonymous No.9870574]

>>9870560
As long as you're pro-white and cognizant of the jewish problem you can believe whatever you want to believe as far as I am concerned. I don't care in the short term. But Christianity is ultimately not ours and should be discouraged in the future, and you should try to accept this. Whites need something new, and won't be returning to this jewish desert religion.

[Anonymous No.9870576]

>>9870564
Schlomo nobody cares if our posts aren't up to your prissy standards, go to reddit and you'll find things moderated to your favor

[Anonymous No.9870580]

i have been physically harmed by the hate words on this messageboard and by the hate words in the hate books they peddle

i am physically shaking right now from my neurons being pelted by harmful words

you should all be imprisoned

[Anonymous No.9870584]

>>9870574
>But Christianity is ultimately not ours

It was founded in the Roman Empire, it was developed by Greek educates intellectuals and it was refined over two thousand years of European history.
Christianity not only is ours. It essentially defines what it is to be European and not simply a mouth breathing barbarian or a boy fucking Hellenic

[Anonymous No.9870586]

>>9870564
>You are 100% convinced that you're right
Right about what? We're talking about the facts of jewish bolshevism. Either you are aware of the nature of jews and their history, or you are uninformed and should not be speaking on the subject until you are better informed, get it?

[Anonymous No.9870587]

>>9870486
better than being around blue-haired nose ring sjw's screaming about you being a white cis male

[Anonymous No.9870589]

>>9870576
It's not about standards. There are two kind of people: those with fixed ideas, like you - which is why I called you a schizo, and people who are rational. I'm fine with arguing with rational people about the Jewish question. Arguing with people like you, on the other hand, is pointless because nothing gets through to you. You are 100% convinced that you are right. You're not having a conversation - you're trying to convert others to a religion. So fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9870591]

>>9870502
>What "madness" exists here but not in Europe? At least ours isn't legislated.
The failure to acknowledge that riling against basic rights ought not to be protected by basic rights.
>I perceive a difference. I don't feel the need to arrest people because of it.
Then I suppose we'll just have to disagree on that.
>Depends entirely on the speech.
How about "Burn all nigger cops!"?
>I've already given you that.
Oh, cool.
So I assume you are also perfectly fine with Salafist Muslims preaching Sharia law and railing against the government.
>>9870505
>It is an irrelevant difference, legally, in the United States.
You mean to tell me that the president of the United States of America could walk on stage right now and tell the people he things "All Muslims should be executed in the streets, hey it's just my opinion." and he would not be legally liable for the ensuing massacre?
I call BS.
>Afaik the only limits are the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" scenario and a low degree of libel.
So you concede that knowingly causing harm with your speech is not protected?

>>9870505
>How about you define "basic rights"
In this case, constitutional rights. Barring that, the UDoHR will suffice.
>and tell me upon what objective principle you have determined which "rights" are "basic"?
I haven't determined them. I just happen to strongly agree with the rights and freedoms I enjoy and see it as my civil duty to protect them when threatened.

Surely you can concede that people can and are stripped of some rights (temporarily at least), when they break important law. i.e.: A murderer losing his right to freedom.
>>9870572
Nope. But guns sure can. And it's easier to forbid people from planning genocide than catching the bullets when it's all said and done.

[Anonymous No.9870593]

>>9870584
>It was founded in the Roman Empire
It was one of many mystery schools, and was promoted by jews because it weakened the empire. These are not good things, and Christianity is not ours. It is a semitic slave morality that has been more harmful than good.