Cred Forums tell me why banning the use of racial, misogynist, homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, etc s is bad

1984

That's not an argument either
?

...

this is exactly my point. if we had regulated speech people wouldn't be in poverty due to low wages and they wouldn't be killed by guns. also they wouldn't know about racism and hatred because it'd be illegal.

>Cred Forums tell me why banning the use of racial, misogynist, homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, etc s is bad
Who decides what those things are and enforces them? What if that power changes hands and gets used in ways you disagree with?

>is this a paid shill?
>an ironic post?
or legit retarded?

>implying the definitions of any of those terms are ambiguous or vague

you people really don't have any arguments do you?

other than it's my WHITE privilege to call someone a n****r.

so your position is ban the first and second amendment

Is your last name Barack by any chance?

Who said you're idea would get that much support?

...

Why can't it be your privilige to call someone a nigger. Why does everything have to be about the big bad whitey with you googles.

Yes there is you filthy fucking commie. As soon as you start policing speech at all for any reason it's gg no re for free speech. For example, consider the anti hate speech laws recently passed in canuckistan. What is hate speech and who gets to define it? How long until criticising the liberal party or grand commisar Trudeau will get you a visit from the sharia squads? The only exemptions to this should be libel and slander, as those are proven false statements intended to do damage to a person.

This is bait. Rate my meme.

>there is no legitimate argument against banning the use of racial, misogynist, homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, etc slurs
Yes there is retard, because who writes the rules?

Checkmate, retard, kill yourself nigger kike whore cunt spic beaner gook slant eyed zipper headed faggot cuckold.

kek agrees

...

I'm not even white you fucking nigger.
I'm the mexican of southeast asia.

Read the first amendment again.

Banning "hate speech" leads to the truth being a crime.

Because you control freaks banned drugs yet I just did cocaine last weekend.

Hate speech is a social construct.
Just like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and so on.

It will stop racists from spreading their message and recruiting others to their cause, though.

If you cannot trust the government with the power to regulate speech, how can you trust them with the power to run the country?

>smiling at male strangers when you walk past them

no wonder you guys are always getting shot

I provided an argument, and you just hand waved it away without answering the question.

How do you define these terms in a way that isn't subjective? How do you sentence people for use of them without the rulings being subjective and therefore applied inequitably?

And, if this authority were supplied how do you prevent it from eventually being misused if the people given that authority use it for other purposes?

It's much easier to expand the authority of government than it is to scale it back. You provide government with the authority to censor speech, and they can turn against you and censor your speech with that authority. You provided it to protect peoples feelings, and they'll use it to protect their position from your attempts to reduce their influence over you.

Holy fucking shit Canada. This is the end times

>youtube.com/watch?v=D8Glnz2buVU

>all these literal retards who don't get the joke in the post being that it's racist against whites

I agree, the gov has way over steeped its legitimate role, we need to reign it back in

i got four words for you you dumb motherfucker
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED

>If you cannot trust the government with the power to regulate speech, how can you trust them with the power to run the country?
I can't trust the government to regulate speech. So again, I don't provide them the authority to do so.

You only provide the authority that you have means of recourse to fix through petitioning the government. If you remove your right to free speech, you will unintentionally undercut your ability to criticize the government.

>It will stop racists from spreading their message and recruiting others to their cause, though.

This is what absolute retards actually believe

>Making drugs, a physical object, illegal don't work
>let's make certain formations of the vocal chords with air passing over them illegal

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

but your "argument's" premises are false so...there was nothing to refute...

>linguistically oppress
It's so cute when you leftykikes think you're intelligent.

no there's nothing there. you literally cannot be racist against whites.

>brazilian education

it's called a constitutional amendment.

Those aren't the right words. The correct words you're looking for is "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW."

i know what i said commie

Yeah, good luck on ramming that through.

HOW DO YOU DEFINE THESE WORDS IN A WAY THAT ISN'T SUBJECTIVE?

HOW IN A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT DO YOU PREVENT THIS AUTHORITY FROM BACKFIRING WHEN THE PUBLIC ELECTS REPRESENTATIVES WHO END UP USING THAT SAME AUTHORITY IN WAYS THAT ARE THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU INTENDED?

Those are not false premises. You want to control specific types of speech. Who would be doing that controlling and how would you ensure that it was controlled in the way you want it to be?

/faggot/ tell me why banning googles skypes skittles women, etc is bad

Obviously these subhumans want to stay because the USA is the best country in the world to be in, at the cost of making it worse.

There is no legitimate argument against banning these groups.

Yeah sure and amending the Bill of Rights to remove or limit a protected right is number one on the list of "things that will cause a civil war."

You are presupposing that the party doing the banning has perfect knowledge of what is "legitimate" and what is not. Every policy disagreement in history has each side regarding its opposition as illegitimate and often also as insane.

I didn't know homophobic speech needed to be defined...

>obviously white people don't want this to happen
What you going on about jamal? It's precisely white people who are pushing for this crap. The others are too busy simply chimping out in response to it to formulate a counter-attack.

I now define your post as homophobic speech. The authorities are to have you sentenced to 2 years in prison. The police will arrest you in 15 minutes.

>Yeah sure and amending the Bill of Rights to remove or limit a protected white privilege is number one on the list of "things that will cause a civil war."

FTFY

also we won the first one we can win the second one.

...

1st fucking Amendment you fucking Marxist cuck.

>It will stop racists from spreading their message and recruiting others to their cause, though.
If they are able to sway peoples opinions so easily, then doesn't that mean that racism might have some value to it?
If it was just complete nonsense that had no leg to stand on there wouldn't be any concern for people becoming racists (except the ones who were indoctrinated from birth, and you can't fix them with your proposal anyway)

So in other words OP is an idiot, and hasn't actually given this real thought.

>I want to make something illegal without defining it

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG???

Again, this is why you don't have an argument. This wouldn't get rid of due process...so the government still has the burden of proof when prosecuting people for oppressive speech.

Well is homophobic speech bad?

I've always wondered how conscious the left is of constructing the apparatus of a police state. Or better yet, how badly things could go wrong on their own end.

When the pendulum comes back, are the left aware that virtually all of their policies can be used against them?

I screencapped your post that's all the proof I need ;^)

Define: Oppressive speech

Without a definition, it's completely arbitrary, and thus, anything could be called oppressive speech.

Fuck off, nigger.

>When the pendulum comes swinging back

they think their politics are "on the right side of history" aka "all people forever will unquestioningly accept this as the best"

>This wouldn't get rid of due process...so the government still has the burden of proof when prosecuting people for oppressive speech.
Due process that involves evaluating subjective things such as speech. So again, how would to define these things in non-subjective ways so that the sentences would not become equally subjective.

The Congress has since your passing of the law changed the definition of these terms they enforce.

You are in contempt of court. Your sentence has been lengthened to 3 years for questioning the ruling of the Judge.

its in the OP

>oppressive
>speech
You do realise that you're talking about literally illegalizing wrongthink, right?

>America founded upon rebelling from oppressive tyranny

Mhmm. I smell a second America soon friends.

>racial, misogynist, homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, etc slurs

Who decides what is a slur?

Who defines what is oppressive?

If a muslim immigrant from Syria expresses distaste toward Jews, should he be jailed? What about if an Isreali expresses distaste at the Muslim faith, when their religious leaders explicitly state that Isreal shouldn't exist?

If it's called Freedom of Speech, then why should certain words or phrase be illegal?

I'm so fucking curious

>If they are able to sway peoples opinions so easily, then doesn't that mean that racism might have some value to it?
No. Just because an idea is easily spread and appeals to idiots, doesn't mean the idea is inherently good. Do you think Communism is valid because it sounds appealing to many people?

because it hurts his fee fees, obviously.

>there is no legitimate argument against banning the use of racial, misogynist, homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, etc slurs
But there is:

Who decides what is racial, misogynist, Xphobic? What if your speech were considered Yphobic? In fact, this post can be seen as a caucasiaphobic remark, whose ONLY purpose is to insight hate between whites and others, therefore it should be removed.

Sucks when you're on the receiving end, no? The idea is that no group of people has the right to tell any individual what they can and can not say. While I find your post ignorant and simple-minded, I don't think it should be banned.

Hmmm. A brighter tomorrow you say? Bring on the light. I welcome it

>if we had regulated speech people wouldn't be in poverty due to low wages and they wouldn't be killed by guns
care to draw me a sketch of that proof?

>if no one can say mean things, everyone will be happy from now on until forever

grow up

Right now there is due process. But what's stopping them from saying "no due process if hate speech is used"? It may not happen, but if we ban one word, some people will find others. The words themselves are the tool, the speaker the worker. Don't blame a hammer for nicking your thumb, blame yourself for missing the nail

>if no one says mean things, people would be happy forever

I don't think he knows about people dying from old age or diseases

Why are you being ageist and ableist? Off to the gulag with you.

>white people don't want this
You just answered your own question.

see

k. keep me posted.

DASLEAF.jpg

yes, i can´t be bothered to upload the image. fuck you.

But the point is no is banned, so they must vote yes. Checkmate.

i like your meme.
also, yes, this is bait

Your post was oppressive because its only purpose was to incite violence by pissing off white people. By stating that white people obviously don't want this to happen, while fully aware of white people who are in favor of banning hate speech, you are actively trying to deceive and incite anger, agression, and violence.

See you in court.

That pic is accurate OP.
Although it's usually reaction, because pic related is how black people "smile" at white people.

That doesn't solve any underlying issues, we should be free to use whatever words we want, but choose to not do so.

Do you understand that concept?

Of course you don't, your idea of a conversation is probably spewing tumblr quotes until you burst a fucking blood vessel in your eye.

Communism is a valid idea, but it only works in small communities, it would never work in a country.
So, the people that communism appeals to are the idiots you are talking about. And I'm all for spreading these ideas, even if the only people who eat them up are stupid, because at the end of the day the smarter people can always prove them wrong if need be.

Because when you take an individuals voice you harm everyone in society. No matter how well your intentions nothing good comes from strangling basic rights of the people

By restricting our rights you become the "Nazi Fascist" you claim to hate.

Like I said , plenty of hate and violence in the OP coming from you. It is clear that you are slandering an entire race of people, many of whom are leaders in censoring hate speech.

We can only conclude that your post was meant to incite violence. Now we got you on hate speech AND intent to incite a riot. How's that due process working for you?

>If you cannot trust the government with the power to regulate speech, how can you trust them with the power to run the country?
>It's easier to monitor the population 24/7 and police every single thing said by every citezen at all times, than to simply keep the country from falling apart.

Wew

Holy shit are you 12

Fuck off nigger faggot
Saged

I propose we trademark "Nigga®", since it seems to be ok to use that.
This is Cred Forums, the last hope for free speech.
I have been called a nigger
I have been called a faggot.
I have been called a nigger-faggot.
None of that upset me, although I have gotten quite autistic over being called a "redditor".

What happens if someone tells a tasteless joke?
Does that justify violence? Police intervention?
Nigga®z are likely to get shot then.

A better solution is to inform the offender that their comment was in bad taste, making them feel like an ass.

You know damn well that is a leaf nigger behind a proxy

Lol go to the UK, cunt. In USA we have 1st amendment. There you can be fired and fined for fb post. Saying you don't like to eat chicken is hate speech. Saying you don't like days without bacon is antisemitic. Fuck you let us say we don't like kikes

All speech should be permitted, including "hate speech". They need to be allowed to voice their ideas, no matter how much you disagree with them. Otherwise they will just get more militant about their ideas, possibly even resorting to violence.

Groups such as the KKK, the Westboro Baptist Church, etc. are already extremely unpopular, and can just be ignored. You can peacefully rebel against these groups by not support their businesses, not interacting with them, or speaking out against their ideas.

But that's not what it's really about, is it scumbag. This is all about you claiming control over the language people use. This is just a big power grab. Makes you feel good, getting on those buses, tearing up those towns, destroying peoples' homes and businesses. The narrative of "another evil white man shoots another innocent black man who dindu nuffin" is getting OLD and BORING. Continue to sling the word "racism" around all over the place, and trying to make people apologize for being white. The American people are sick of your bullshit, and you are losing more and more power every single day.

Bump

Malodorous idiot. You can ban all the words that offend your faggoty feelings. Hate will always exist. It is part of who we are as humans. Ban a word and another will replace it.Futility.

>speech
>wrongthink

There's a lot more to fascism than just restricting speech. Otherwise fascism would have existed long before the 20th century.

Everyone should be allowed to voice their ideas, however expression of ideas should not be exempt from consequences. If you say hateful things about a group, people (including those who work for the state) should be free to tell others that you are a hateful person. That's the thing with free speech - once you put it out there, anyone can warn others about you. And furthermore, with true freedom of speech, it is equally possible to spread false claims about you. So, suppose you express the idea that we should reduce the number of Muslims entering the country. And with free speech, that is perfectly acceptable. But you'd also have to accept your opponents spreading the claim that you are a literal Nazi, even though such a claim is false.

>that pic

EVERYTHING IS A MICROAGGRESSION AGH

FUCKING WHITE PEOPLE MADE ME STUB MY TOE AND SPILL MY COFFEE

>legitimate
yes there is

the first amendment

you know the thing you kikes use for piss christ

you love it long time when you use it for anti-white purposes

...

You have to go back.