It's unfortunate that a post like this is required.

And I agree 100%.

What was physical removal all about?

Politely asking people to leave of their own accord.

Well..did anyone ask them politely to leave? Why were they worth banning?

What it was actually about: "politely" dropping leftists from helicopters memes, which then predictably escalated in general alt-right violence inciting.

They were recently celebrating the death of the girl from Charlottesville and multiple comments were wishing more had died, with some words of encouragement to people wanting to replicate it.

Does that include when people on here say that they want to "hang Trump/Hillary" or their supporters or members of any political affiliation?

Yep.

Ok cool

I've not seen anything like that on this sub. The worst is people calling each other shills.

I've seen people call for lynching of Clinton and hanging Trump

Wrong. What about " I hope you had buddies that died in Afghanistan ". Because that has happened. It happened to me. Or is that level of intolerance given a given a pass here because "meh Isreal?"

No, the worst is when I see calls for the destruction of Israel or all Jews. That shit doesn't get taken down, for some reason. Interesting that the mods suddenly seem to give a rip.

Israel seems to be an interesting topic. If you took the view that Israel is a faux state attempting to colonise Palestine then you might think that it should be removed. I like the idea of tolerance, only question i have is "should we be tolerant towards the intolerant?"

Yes. If not, then people everywhere will think they have the right to point at someone, and mark them as intollerable. Since laws are mere suggestions and the rule of law is facilitated by force, the only way to enforce one's views on the intllerant, is by the justification and use of force.

And that, is not a world that anyone wants.

So why do you want the calls for the destruction of Israel or all Jews taken down?

In one sentence you call for censorship of view and in the other say that we should allow it and not turn to force. My comment was to imply that the opposing perspective one could have about these comments is that they call out the intolerance commited by Israel. With their comments they are choosing to be intolerant towards others who are intolerant and you respond to that by being intolerant of them if you choose to censor them.

I agree, this is not a world that anyone wants. I personally feel that all speech should be allowed. If a comment or viewpoint be unjust/foolish/unacceptable then that should be easily proven and we should encourage each other to do so via discourse.

Yes, tolerance. It's sort of a silly question, because it presupposes a choice. I do not believe we have the ability to control others, and though we can manipulate our environment, I do this for defensive purposes only. I am not so impressed with myself that I believe I can run the world better than it can run itself. So yes, tolerance, as if there were another way.

Calling for the destruction of Israel and all Jews is the worst thing I've seen online, but no I wasn't falling for it to be censored. I just felt it was ironic to make such a big point about it, while doing nothing about those posts. If people wanted to do away with Zionism I wouldn't disagree at all, but when you lump all other Jews in with them...it's like letting some bad apples spoil the whole bunch right? Anyways...

ive seen calls for rounding up liberals and putting them in camps because they are 'traitors'

nice because ive seen a couple users in the past say theyd like to round up political dissenters/'traitors'/prisoners and put them in camps/kill them

I feel like the Mods are pretty fair. They don't let the Alt-Right or the Alt-Left get away with too much shit.

Is that what we're calling it now?

I think Alt-left is fair. Fringe groups exist in all affiliations from political party to the chess club. While white supremacists are the most dangerous threat at the moment. Violent "alt-left" shouldn't be ignored. Both can be battled at the same time.

No, it isn't. Alt-Right is what those people started calling themselves. It is a specific group with specific beliefs. Antifa is specific group that is radical left wing and with specific ideals. Alt-left on the other hand doesn't signify any specific ideology. This is intentional - they can easily group anyone left as "alt-left" since it's a bullshit term. This is what happened with the most recent protests - all the counter protesters are being called alt-left. That was the most ridiculous part of what Trump said - he implied the entire counter protest is the "alt-left". I hate to break it to you - there are a shit ton of people who are against neo-Nazis, including a lot of conservatives and republicans. It's total garbage.

I'm against neo-nazis. I hope you weren't implying otherwise. I don't know why we can't also fight other extremist groups like Antifa without it automatically meaning I am sympathetic to the alt-right.

No, I'm just saying "alt-left" isn't a fair term. Alt-right beliefs are much more clearly defined - it doesn't just mean someone who is very conservative, or someone who is far right republican. It is a specific, more extreme group. If you start using "alt-left", you are going to group some annoying SJW twitterer or tree hugger with Antifa smashing windows during a protest. That isn't fair at all.

The term "alt-left" was coined by the left to describe rabid Bernie supporters.

Go look at it's use - it is primarily used by right leaning media in an obvious effort to equate really liberal people as the flip side of the coin to alt right, which is self described as white nationalists. And the point still stands that "alt-left" doesn't mean any specific ideology, whereas "alt right" does.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

There is none. Alt right does not apply to any far right republican or conservative. It is a specific group with specific ideology.

You haven't been paying attention. The media has used the "alt-right" label to describe conservatives like Ben Shapiro. If you don't know who he is, look him up, and you'll see why the hypocrisy is astounding.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/gist/2016/11/ben_shapiro_on_steve_bannon_the_alt_right_and_why_the_left_needs_to_turn.html

Not as a rule - you can't get more liberal that slate and they aren't. I'm sure you can find some example where someone is wrong, but that's not what matters. The right is right now using alt-left to mean all counter protesters.

That was from almost a year ago. I'm talking about in recent weeks.

So in recent weeks people are calling Ben Shapiro alt right?

Exactly. He went on a rant about it on his show. Super pissed off. He was the #1 target of alt-right anti-semititic harassment in 2016.

When I searched Ben Shapiro and alt right all I got was that article from a year ago

Both are cancerous movements being fueled by hate and the same kabal. One side hates non-whites and one side hates America and Reddit is full of both kinds

That's a false equivalence; Nazis are worse.

Why do you say that?

i would argue that the Nazis are worse because their hatred stems from racism. Most, if not all, of the groups that you might label as "alt-left" have a hard that stems from oppression.

Economic oppression is one of the greatest fuels to racism

have a hatred that stems from oppression.

lol. It's 2017 and most of those people in that group live in first world countries. Muh, oppreshuns....

That what Nazis want; to be mocked and no longer thought of as a threat, so they can worm their way into legitimate political discussion. They are evil and must be resisted (without unnecessary force).

Right. They don't want to be thought of as a threat which is why they bring riot shields and blunt weapons when they gather. Oh, and kill people.

Cause they want to be thought of as not a threat. Genius

In a way doesn't that almost prove his point? They show up in a small town, some of them armed, with numbers behind them, wielding weapons and shields, but then turn will turn around and mock people's criticisms of them. As if people are supposed to just brush it off and think its no big deal.

You're assuming that the people mocking them and the people who actually take themselves seriously enough to wear shit like that in public are the same people.

How many people have you called "nazi" or "nazi apologist" on this sub today?

What I was trying to say is that dismissing and ignoring these guys as silly little fringe groups on the internet has only allowed them to grow.

Vice News did a recent segment where they had a reporter follow these guys around Charlottesville over the weekend and one of the guys who helps run The Daily Stormer (neo-nazi website) was literally bragging to the cameras about spreading memes, organizing on the internet, and recruiting people.

Now they're showing up to these rallies armed to the teeth, wearing riot gear, wielding bats and clubs, and the whole attitude of brushing these guys off doesn't really work anymore.

And to answer your question: none. In fact, I've gotten some nasty replies and PM's for speaking out against these shitheads.

I get what you're saying about dismissing them as insignificant backfiring, butni really don't think it's a tactic they are employing. Bragging abiut spreading memes and recruiting on the internet does not strike me as someone trying to make their movement seem powerless or silly. That's my point, it's not them doing it. Just for the record if there ever is some kind of major nazi movement I'll take up arms against them, I don't think they are insignificant.

And to answer your question: none. In fact, I've gotten some nasty replies and PM's for speaking out against these shitheads.

That's pretty fucked up.

I have one more question, cause I think you do make a pertinent point when you point out how years of telling people something is a silly little fringe gives it room to grow: what do you think about the fringe of radicals on the left calling for white genocide, or, for example, this fine gentleman I'm having a conversation with right now:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6txwr3/as_a_general_reminder_under_no_circumstances_will/dlolng1/

He told me if I think that comment is racist, "just wait"

Insignificant, ignorable fringe? Or problem waiting to happen, insulated by its assumed insignificance?

I don't know, I'm just guessing and could be totally wrong. But, hearing that guy talk about spreading memes and recruiting over the internet just resonated with me.

I've seen stormfronters and neo-nazis post straight up racist and anti-semetic bullshit here on reddit but then if you look at their profile most of their posts are total nonsense.

They're trolls who start arguments and make all types of inflammatory comments in various subs and then sprinkled in between memes and bullshit is some slight holocaust denial here, maybe some crime stats about black people there.

I mean, yeah there's definitely the full-on "I hate n-words" types but I think there's also a lot of dog whistling that happens and its more subtle. That's where the 'oh they're just trolling' dismissal can be deceiving. Clearly there are a decent amount of people who will show up for these things in real life now and they're not just shitposting on the internet anymore.

I agree with everything you said, except, again, I think it's more of an attitude produced by people not wanting to be associated with the problem groups and so they ignore then or pretend they aren't a big deal.

I mean, you completely ignored the link I gave you and everything I said about it rather than acknowledging it. That kind of is exactly my point.

Some want normalization, and love nothing more than to gloss over violence and blame "both sides." I really don't think most of them have a viable plan in place, and some might just want to troll and get high on outrage porn. But to them, "Unite The Right" means bringing the rest of the right closer to their side and get people like you defending them. How big is a gulf between Richard Spencer and Steve Bannon? Nowhere near far enough for my taste.

I literally just said they kill people. Lol, how am I defending them? Let's start there

But to them, "Unite The Right" means bringing the rest of the right closer to their side and get people like you defending them.

people like you defending them

I will give you credit; nothing in this thread can be considered defending them, and I apologize. I want to avoid assuming their is a conscious connection....but UTR was an attempt to unite right-wing groups, and it was no secret neo-nazis and klansmen were going to attend. Please like Richard Spencer, in my opinion, want to further nazi-esque goals while hiding the swastikas, and to that effect may try to normalize their putrid beliefs with more moderate Rightists.

But because Spencer might want to do that doesn't mean it will happen, and you certainly have no place in such a hypothesis. Again, I apologize.

I accept your apology. You should recognize the problem you have when you assume anyone who disagrees with you is a nazi sympathizer. That's a really bad problem that is going to cause the kind of problems for you that a simple apology won't fix. I am an independent with a degree in history and political science who's voted for 16 years, never once voting Republican. Never once.

You need to stop apologizing for the left. What you said early about how people want to blame both sides... I absolutely fucking blame both shitty ass sides. I blame both sides working towards their endgame while being 100% bought and paid for by corporate interests.

I blame people on the right who do nothing but talk about the left and apologize for the right. I blame people like you who do nothing but tall about the right and apologize for the left.

All you've done in this thread, besides criticize Nazis, is whatabout for the left and call a lifelong independent a nazi defender, all because I criticized the left and you're trigger happy.

Get your head on straight and stop being a hyperpartisan. Acknowledge that problems are problems and the existence of Nazis doesn't make the people who want to "dilute white DNA" any less of a problem, regardless of if you or I consider the Nazis worse.

Want to k ow what scares me? Not the Nazis, they'll be fucking dealt with. Without a doubt, if they ever tried anything major, people would fucking destroy them. This backlash over UTR is just a taste of how much fire the Nazis would have coming their way. What scares me is the fact that the vast majority of people say the same shit about the racists on the left that the nazi apologists say here: "they aren't true ____" or "it's just a tiny fringe of basically no one" yet the backlash against a guy saying he want to dilute white DNA is nothing. Nothing at all. That's what scares me

I've voted Democrat twice but with all the radicalisation and popular support for that radicalisation, I won't be doing it again.

I disagree with a lot of what you said, but I appreciate the way you said it, and the overall sentiment. We can be agreeable even if we don't agree.

Thanks for the discussion, and again, for the apology. I just reread my reply and I probably went overboard and ranted at you too hard, sorry about that.

Thanks for the civility. Have a good night.

You too, thanks.

Maybe they were spooked by an incident that happened last year where KKK klansmen stabbed three counter protestors in self-defense.

A group of 10 to 20 counterprotesters were waiting for the Klansmen at the park with “the intent of perpetrating violence,” a police statement said. As some KKK members began pulling out “White Lives Matter” signs, counterprotesters swarmed the SUV and smashed a window, prompting the SUV’s driver to take off, leaving the greatly outnumbered Klan members behind.

Seven of the counterprotesters were seen attacking Klansmen and hitting them with wooden posts, the AP reported, and the KKK members responded by stabbing three of the counterprotesters

http://www.newsweek.com/kkk-members-stabbed-protesters-self-defense-police-say-attack-caught-video-431548

Uh... I was talking about the Nazis, dude.

Why would neo nazis get spooked by a klansman stabbing someone?

Maybe, but that's not what I'm taking about, here. I'm talking about the dumb argument that other guy made.

Plus, if you're gonna go with the past events justification, then you could say the counter protestors were spooked by the nazis due to their treatment of certain people in the past.

Do you see a boogeyman behind every tree? There are no actual Nazis, these days. The closest to actual Nazis would be a group of people behind the Deep State (ie. intelligence agencies, bankers, financiers, weapon dealers/manufacturers, etc etc).

It's like people have become so bored with their lives that they need to feel oppressed and have an enemy "out to get them". Many older people who actually went through the Civil Rights era think groups like BLM and such are a bunch of damn spoiled ignorant brats.

In the real world, the KKK and neo-Nazis are few and far. Manly in the backwoods. Who too are just bored as shit drunk racists. Hell, even the Aryan Brotherhood aren't real Nazis. They work with minorities behind the scenes all the damn time for criminal activity.

Now, what people like you are doing, is conflating various ideologies, and lumping people together. You know what that's eventually going to get you? An actual enemy out to get you, because they're tired off your shit. You pushed them there, not the other way around. The internet makes the world seem like such a small world, but really, it's not.

An actual enemy out to get you, because they're tired off your shit. You pushed them there, not the other way around.

This sounds like a call to action; looking out for a Reichstag Fire and not-so-subtly use it to justify violence, and blaming the victim to boot. Nothing I say will push almost-nazis the rest of the way; I hope all those assholes in Charlottesville were just Cosplaying fascism, with the Richard Spencers and Steve Bannons of the world I am concerned they may try to gain further influence.

There are no actual Nazis, these days. The closest to actual Nazis would be a group of people behind the Deep State (ie. intelligence agencies, bankers, financiers, weapon dealers/manufacturers, etc etc).

Sounds like you'd rather go after perceived enemies of God Emperor Trump than actual bad hombres.

If you go around falsely accusing conservatives of being Nazis and continue to "bash" them, there will come a point in time where they will give you what your looking for. The way you speak is eerily similar to Sadomasochists.

Sounds like you'd rather go after perceived enemies of God Emperor Trump than actual bad hombres.

God Emperor? What the fuck are you talking about. I didn't vote for Trump, bub.

I haven't accused anyone here as being a neo-nazi. That is a strawmen argument Rightists are making to deflect from perceived criticism. Somewhere else in this thread I accused someone of defending them, and I apologize for that.

I see what you mean. But when you look at it the Alt-Left Hates America and Alt-Right hates non-whites. I would disagree it's about oppression anymore. I mean if you look at Cville the smart thing to do would have just been to let them have their Rally and go home. The Alt-Left couldn't let them. They had to unleash their wrath. Now our whole countries on edge and both movements are growing.

Both sides protested, one side got violent. Sounds like you would rather blame the victim.

Both sides got violent. And only one side tried to trample on the other sides Constitutional Rights

And only one side tried to trample on the other sides Constitutional Rights

By rights you mean as in right to live, as in getting killed by a car? I agree with that.

Right to peacefully assemble. The Alt-Left has been attacking people from over a year. And an Alt-Left Ghazi shot up a dozen Congressman about a month ago. Both sides are Pieces of Shit. Why do you have so much trouble condemning the Alt-Left Movement? Do you support violence if it's directed at Conservatives?

You are all over the place.

LOL! What? Sounds like you just don't got a leg to stand on.

Fair enough. Nice talking to you.

Right to peacefully assemble.

Once you start being violent you lose that right. If you think the protestors were the ones first attacked you are just willfully ignorant so there's no point trying to discuss anything.

The Alt-Left has always attacked first. Even if they didn't they had no legal right to be there. They weren't permitted. And two wrongs don't make a right. They shouldn't have responded Violence with more violence if the Alt-Right attacked first. No one knows.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6ti0v3/anybody_else_sick_of_the_leftist_lies_and/dlku6vs/

Yep, definitely no racism on the left

How is that racism? You proved his point

The white DNA needs to be diluted, I don't mean exterminate but more little half breed babies. It will be good for the planet

So you agree with that statement?

Hey if you want to fuck your cousin's more power to you.

Wait so you're saying that all white people are cousins and siblings to each other?

It's basically what all of you want. It's obvious.

So youre saying that you think all white people want to fuck their siblings and cousins, and you also don't think you're a racist?

Not all, just the supremacist ones. Good job being the new liberals of the country.

Not all? You just said it's basically what all of you want.

Why are you backpedaling on that now?

What all of you supremacists want. What backpeddling?

How am I a white supremacist?

How are you not?

Cause I don't believe in white supremacy.

How are you not a racist for thinking that white DNA needs to be diluted?

You wouldn't crusade like that for any other race. It's obvious.

So posting a link is a "Crusade" now? No.

How are you not a racist for wanting to dilute white DNA?

How are you not racist for wanting the extermination of all other races so you can preserve white skin? Your entire ideology is violence and a call to it. Your existence is violence.

I don't want the extermination of other racists. I'm an independent who's never voted Republican and who has voted Democrat twice. Lol, I'm starting to think you're an alt right troll just trying to make left wing radicals look bad.

How are you not a racist for wanting to dilute white DNA?

You just said leftists are racist and you vote leftist. Proved my point.

He said it needed it. I didn't say that. Limiting your gene pool for a skin color sounds like eventual inbreeding is kinda like fucking your cousins. You want to preserve a skin color which makes you a white supremacist former Democrat voter.

You just said leftists are racist

No here's what I said:

Yep, definitely no racism on the left

And

Yep left wing radicals are super not racist.

First comment I said there was racism on the left, which there is. Just like there is racism on the right.

Second comment I specifically said radicals, like you.

Limiting your gene pool for a skin color sounds like eventual inbreeding

So what you think is that if you start with, say, 10,000 people in a gene pool, it gets smaller as they breed and have offspring? How does that work?

lol sad little man. If you think that's racism you just wait kiddo

Yo, /u/assuredlyathrowaway, what do you make of this comment in light of the topic of your post?

Just wait until the neo Nazis kill even more people with you supporting it all the way.

I 100% don't support them and haven't supported them anywhere in this post.

You're mad because you're a racist, that's it.

You must realize you've reinforced u/Detective4's point perfectly.

You're so blinded by hatred for a specific group of people, you can't see your own bigotry.

Unbelievable.

Neo-Nazis, much like their German spiritual forefathers, advocate a fascist totalitarian state that eliminates/subjugates undesirables and conquers all others that don't submit. Other authoritarians may want to do those things to secure power, but Nazis preach it as a religion and way of life. Just because other parties are bad doesn't excuse worse behavior.

But what the Alt-Left wants is Communism. The Alt-Left hates America as much as the Alt-Right hates Non-whites. Both are equally as bad. Communism has killed way more people then Nazism has and has infected way more societies. They are both Satanic Ideologies. It's pointless to argue which one is worse because you could make the case either way and neither ideology has any redeemable qualities.

Whataboutism is strong; no matter what Alt-left may or may not think, Nazis desire and encourage violence. Not saying no one else has been violent before, but Nazis fetishise it. That's bad.

Seriously? I'm trying to have a have a serious respectful conversation with you and you bring out this stupid assinine r/politics talking point "Duuuuuuuuuurrrrr Whataboutism". Honestly I want you to explain to me EXACTLY how it's a "Muh Whataboutism" when you are sitting here trying to convince me that Nazism is worse then Communism and I State that the argument could be made both ways. And be specific. Or I will just assume that "Whataboutism" is just your stupid "Go To" when you don't have a leg to stand on. Might work with the retards on r/politics but it isn't going to work here.

trying to convince me that Nazism is worse then Communism

Neo-nazis encourage violence against non-whites, and are considered a terrorist group. Communists don't have a viable political agenda (IMO) but don't legitimately encourage violence against a group the Supreme Court considers a protected class (random and vague threats against capitalists notwithstanding). Again, both sides are bad but one is worse.

Happy?

Fair enough. Nice talking to you.

Soviets killed far more people than the Nazis.

That irrelevant to neo-nazis advocating violence and someone at UTR killing one and severely injuring 19 others.

You didn't say neo-Nazi, you said Nazis. Antifa are neo-Stalinists.

Sounds like a generalization of them.

Generalization of who?

Gee, is this that "whataboutism" I've been hearing so much about?

Okay, you heard him guys. Criticising the left is irrelevant cause nazis

Neo-nazis are a threat and cannot be ignored or thought they couldn't do any real damage. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Umm

I think that if you call for a whites only America, you actually hate America because we are a nation of immigrants. Always have been

LOL! What!? This is one of the weirdest comment I ever seen on r/conspiracy and that is saying a lot! What are you trying to say? Like are you saying Immigrants aren't White? Can you better articulate your answer because right now it makes no sense at all.

There are white immigrants and brown immigrants and fucking who knows, purple immigrants. It's idiotic to claim to be a patriot who loves your country but only some whites only version of your country.

Its like saying I love my corolla but only if it turns into a Porsche first

What? I just don't follow your logic. I think you might have an argument but it's not coming through. So what about the Non-Whites that are born here? And what does Immigrants have to do with anything? You realize the Alt-Right can love White Immigrants and hate Non-White Immigrants at the same time? Also not everyone is an immigrant. A lot of people are descended from Colonists, Natives and Slaves.

I could/should have said

we are a nation of different ethnic backgrounds so of which aren't white

Instead of

Immigrants

My point is, America the "melting pot" is what makes it so great. People who claim that this nation would somehow improve if we were to clean all the non-whites out are fooling themselves AND they're not nearly as patriotic as they think

OK thanks. I get what you are saying now sorry. The Alt-Right sees America as a White Nation that has become weak and has allowed itself to be corrupted by Non-Whites. They would see your perception of America as "Incorrect". A lot of Alt-Right aren't working for an all White America they are working towards the Survival of their race and "A Future for White Children". People's perception is their reality even if they have the wrong perception.

They've been trying to make "Alt Left" happen for months now, looks like Trump just made it happen

If there's an "alt right" then there must be an "alt left",no?

Why? The Richard Spencer created the Alt-right label to brand his White Nationalist movement as a contrast to the blend of economic and social focuses that currently makes up the majority of the right. It refers to a specific movement within conservativism, why does that necessitate an "alt-left"?

Richard Spencer did not in any way create, or even popularize, the term "alt-right". And from the looks of it 99% of the people who consider themselves members of the alt-right despise him. Just saying.

Richard Spencer did not in any way create,

That's not what he claims...

or even popularize, the term "alt-right"

He literally created a website called "alternativeright.com"

I mean, most of us want to hang the politicians and bankers, but only after they get a fair trial.

Sending them to a shithole prison for the rest of their lives is a much much worse punishment for those people. Live of luxury to life of privation?? Yeah it's worse

Can we say for example "all peodophiles should be hung"?

Not all pedophiles are child abusers.

I'm aware of this.

My personal opinion is that we should hang them anyway just to be on the safe side.

When I say hang them.Im not advocating lynching of pedophiles by the angry mobs . I would like to see the edracation of pedophiles from society by lawful execution,the hanging them part is colourful language on my part but we are free call for reinstatement of hanging as a form of punishment in a democratic society. Aren't we?

I understand this is very extreme position (I bet it would be popular one with the unwashed masses,the voters) and it's very unlikely to garner much political support ,politicians voting to kill pedos is like turkeys voting for Thanksgiving.

I also know that there is all sorts of issues with this position,how would you prove it,what if it was accidental etc,so most likely my position could be softened through debate. Maybe I could be pursauded that non offending pedos should just be chemically castrated instead.

Basically my political position on the pedo problem is that the strongest possible punishment and deterrent should be used .I feel that the wider public would be in favour of a much tougher stance on pedos and our political representatives should make laws and policy that move towards wiping out the pedo problem from society .

In a democracy am I not allowed to call for this?

Is not a legitimate opinion?

I mean that's why I brought it up.

I we no longer allowed to express our political opinions on this sub?

Do I have to tone down my language?

I love a response from the mods. I don't want get banned for saying hang the pedos.

You think people should be hung for thought crime?

Yep.

I don't care about the rights of pedophiles.Fuck them. They can swing as far as I'm concerned.

I think this would be the most effective way to eradicate the pedo problem.

It's an ideological position and impossible to enforce or prove but it would massively reduce the number of pedophiles that are alive today and as such our children would be safer.

The issue in this thread is are we allowed to say this anymore?

You're what's wrong with world, your moral barometer is way off.

I'd say pedos are a bigger problem than the people that want far tougher punishments for them.The people that want to harm our children are what's wrong with the world not the people that want to protect them.

After all I couldn't hold these views if child sex monsters didn't exist.A bit like Antifa who according to CNN and other alt left fake news propaganda only exist as a reaction to facists,these views only exist as a reaction to pedophiles.

As I have said I'm aware these views are extreme but many many people hold them and this is why it's important that we can discuss them openly,no? That way they can be tempered and tested and challenged.

You can be attracted to children and not want to harm one by abusing it though, don't you see?

Yeah.

I think it would be safest for the children if these people were executed or at least chemically castrated.

Hypothetically of course. No way to tell . I mean no one would admit if they knew they would be executed.

I don't think killing people who haven't done anything wrong is a good idea.

I'd prefer all the pedophiles executed over any more children being raped.

Well you can't read someone's mind so all you'll accomplish is them going even further underground. Which, for those who act on it means fewer witnesses. If you're going to kill them anyway, why would they let the victim live?

People who watch child porn are complicit in its production and the victimization of the children in it.

Not all pedophiles consume child pornography.

but they are complicit in its production

What about a Napolitano style series of questions with obvious answers?

Like what what if we hold these truths to be self evident. And what if a call to arms is the answer to the greatest problems we face today? And what if /r/conspiracy mods just announced that they will suppress any attempt to sound the alarm just so they can hold on to their tiny sliver of power?

Just for example. Certainly wouldn't want to imply all those things are true.

Sounds a lot like you're calling for violence.

Those are questions. And I'm not even asking them. I'm asking if I'm going to be held responsible for how the mods answer them.

I dont see how a conspiracy sub is a place to assemble for that. Make a discord server or some shit.

How is a conspiracy sub not a place to for that?

because this isnt a militia sub. its a place for discussion, not recruitment and planning.

Who says that's what the user was getting at? Also, militias are apart of the conspiracy. Methinks, you just have a limited mindset of what does and doesn't belong here.

what else does "call to arms" mean?

Im just not one to use a conspiracy discussion sub as a place to assemble any sort of group out for violence. thats just me though.

what else does "call to arms" mean?

Could mean many things, depending on context.

Im just not one to use a conspiracy discussion sub as a place to assemble any sort of group out for violence. thats just me though.

I don't believe that was the intent of that user's comment.

What do you believe their intent was?

Also its pretty clear what it means on this context, dont need you to explain it for me. Or are my thoughts wrong as well?

What do you believe their intent was?

Voicing their concern of possible censorship.

Or are my thoughts wrong as well?

I think you utterly lack reading comprehension...

so the mods saying no calls for violence somehow raises concern for censorship?

and nah, no problems with reading comprehension, just know how to read through bullshit.

so the mods saying no calls for violence somehow raises concern for censorship?

User was asking to clarify, plain and simple.

For example, am I calling for violence by quoting Jefferson on the tree of liberty quote? Slippery sliding into 1984, if you ask me.

The full blown pacification of /r/conspiracy is taking place, and we're over here trying to figure out how much of our civil liberties we have to sacrifice in order to keep making our mark on this place. The more I see, the more I see my time here is coming to an end. I can't play PC games anymore. Do you think TPTB are limiting their strategy to nonviolence? We can't even suggest hanging those who make us murder one another now? C u t e.

This.

Good.

Thank you for posting this.

I've noticed a lot Anti-Jewish rhetoric in Thread Posts lately. With people stopping just short of outright Anti-Semitism.

I think the moderators of this sub need to understand that especially given recent events people are going to be looking for posts like these to point to and it would surely be an embarrassment for Reddit as a Community if the perception is that one of it's Subs allows Racist Ideas and Language to exist unchecked.

I like this Sub it's great and the Moderators do a more than adequate job although certain Topics like "Zionist Conspiracies" and etc could been seen in a new context moving forward.

stopping just short of outright Anti-Semitism.

I suggest you build up a good argument and call them out on it.

I've notice that peoples interpretation of "anti-semitism" differ widely from one another.

I don't even want to be involved in a discussion like that last time I did someone had made a post about literally:

The Jews got the Holocaust as payback for killing Jesus

My comment was: The Romans killed Jesus

I got 3 hateful Messages filled with Racial Slurs and telling me to kill myself.

I reported the post, the messages, and all the comments I felt were against the rules. I messaged the moderators also yet nothing was removed and I've seen those users active on this sub since contributing to similar posts

I don't even want to be involved in a discussion like that

And you have every right not to.

Right the thing is I like this sub I have a lot of fun and learn stuff all the time. I'm sure other do as well.

The sad thing is though one day there is gonna be some nut on here saying hurtful/hateful stuff and "they" are going to come along and request everyone who contributes to the subs user info, IP address, and etc.

When the FBI is looking at a spreadsheet with our names next to some white trash neo-nazi types we could regret even spending time on here. Better to stop it before it causes real trouble it's obviously a nuisance and doesn't belong on Reddit.

I wouldn't worry about it. True anti semitism represents a small fraction of the internet and they're mostly @/pol/.

You're good.

..or Jews like this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Ryne_Goldberg

The /pol/ Nazi memes are mostly Department of Defense.

"Better not hurt someone's feelings or there will be hell to pay." Just stop.

Make a post about it with link/proof etc.

I, for one, would upvote you.

Otherwise, I mean...

It's the same motherfucker that does that all the time. He's got like 50 accounts, and he burns through them constantly making Jew comments and then sending death threats to people who disagree with him.

He once threatened to stab and gay rape me for being a "faggot kike." Which is a really odd thing to say in more ways than one...

50% chance he's an impotent psychopath, 50% chance he's an FBI agent.

And 75% chance that he's a classic troll out to piss people off for "fun".

Say, that 175%!!!

Do you know who I'm talking about? I don't think I have any of his usernames saved.

There are many. Some are adolescent trolls, some are actual "haters".

But some of the most vile content is posted by crypto-trolls who come here with specific intent of making the sub look racist. Some of these have been famously busted - one literally, by the FBI - for inciting terrorism.

I know of no way to stop them from coming, so we ban them when we see them.

Banned one today, in fact. That guy broke 5 rules, and he only posted 3 words!

That's got to be a record.

He just PMed me.

u/kikemaster42069yolo1

Some of these have been famously busted - one literally, by the FBI - for inciting terrorism.

Wait, you guys had a user get busted by the FBI here?

He just PMed me.

That account is 2 days old. I suggest you contact the Admins regarding this user and any PM's he has sent, as we can't help you there, as we can't verify. Admins have far more resources to stop such abuse than do mods.

Wait, you guys had a user get busted by the FBI here?

His name is Joshua Ryne Goldberg, a Jewish lad, then aged 20, who had a REAL talent for stirring up trouble and sowing discord. He would often pose as a "radical Islamist", other times as a "white supremacist", and other times as a racist, Palestinian hating Jew.

We had nothing to do with his being busted, that was all his own doing. But we (myself in particular) called that Troll out for what he was months before he was arrested by the FBI.

He was here - and all over Reddit, and he went to great lengths to try to associate this sub and its moderators with "White Supremacists" and "Nazi" lunatics - even writing an article for a White Supremacist website that called this sub a "fertile recruiting ground" for the White Supremacist "cause".

The article was a fake, of course, and THAT is what I called at the time - of course I was MOCKED by others who, like Goldberg, have been working to smear and destroy this sub for years.

Here are a few relevant articles:

‘Terrorist’ Troll Pretended to Be ISIS, White Supremacist, and Jewish Lawyer

Florida man is accused of helping supposed bomb plot at KC event commemorating 9/11

FBI says 'Australian IS jihadist' is actually a Jewish American troll named Joshua Ryne Goldberg

And of course, Wikipedia

What became of Goldie? Who knows? He could have faced years in prison - but I suspect that he got "special treatment" reserved for "special people", and got off with a slap on the wrist.

Hey, he may be posting on Reddit and sending PM's right now!

That account is 2 days old. I suggest you contact the Admins regarding this user and any PM's he has sent, as we can't help you there, as we can't verify. Admins have far more resources to stop such abuse than do mods.

I'm gonna let this one run its course for a few days. For science.

What became of Goldie? Who knows? He could have faced years in prison - but I suspect that he got "special treatment" reserved for "special people", and got off with a slap on the wrist.

Yeah it sounds like he was an FBI asset. Cointelpro is pretty easy to spot.

Required readings:

Mein Kampf

Sounds like a great dude.../s

I reported the post, the messages, and all the comments I felt were against the rules. I messaged the moderators also yet nothing was removed and I've seen those users active on this sub since contributing to similar posts

I'm sorry to hear that. We do our best to examine all reports, and to enforce the rules of this sub and of Reddit, but sometimes we miss things, especially during hectic times like these.

Please send links to the comments you referenced to the Mod Mail (Please do not post them here, or reveal the name of the user in the threads, thank you!) Also, send the links to me in a PM, and I will personally investigate any rule violations.

Regarding PM's I doubt we mods could help with any unsettling messages you may have received, as we are unable to validate them. I suggest you contact Reddit Administrators for help with PM issues.

I've notice that peoples interpretation of "anti-semitism" differ widely from one another.

That's why they intentionally use imprecise language. Even the word "Jew," what does it mean?

The religion of the ancient Hebrews? Talmudism? People who go to synagogue a few times a year? Descendants of the ancient Hebrews? What about Ethiopian Jews?

It gets really silly really fast, and it's designed to muddy the waters so you don't talk about bankers and secret societies.

I've noticed a lot Anti-Jewish rhetoric in Thread Posts lately.

We dove deep on that awhile back, and probably 75% of it was feds of some kind. I've always suspected FBI, because they also tend to call for violence.

are going to be looking for posts like these examples to point to and it would surely be an embarrassment for Reddit as a Community if the perception is that one of it's Subs allows Racist Ideas and Language to exist unchecked.

I actually disagree with you here, even though I think the Jews stuff is fake and totally discredited. We need to allow free speech if it's genuine, and we need to stop worrying about whether people will be offended by honest discussion.

If Jews really rule the world, and someone can prove it with evidence, that should be allowed to be said.

I'm not opposed to Conspiracy Theories. Although many of these posts are not based on sources whatsoever and the comments just wind up being people talking about "Jews being Evil". It's mostly a bunch of recycled 30's Era scapegoating.

I get the Freedom of Speech stuff but there are rules on Reddit and IMO most of the Posts about "Jewish Conspiracies" purposefully incite discussions/comments that are contrary to the rules.

Whenever you see someone incessantly pushing an idea, and refusing to abandon it in the face of overwhelming evidence, you need to step back. Either they're a complete moron, or they're manipulating the discussion.

Look at their tactics, and it becomes clear. Do they cite information, make logically sound arguments? Shills are a dead giveaway because they almost never cite sources, and they make horribly unsound arguments all the time.

they almost never cite sources, and they make horribly unsound arguments all the time.

TIL shills and stupid people are indistinguishable.

Strange that this post describes a good amount of your content in this sub.

"7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

and probably 75% of it was feds of some kind

Considering anti semetic subreddits like /r/uncensored_news have +100,000 subscribers I seriously doubt you need "feds" to cause anti semetism on reddit.

I think people make the typical mistake which is the oldest trick in the racist's divide and conquer hanbook: Equating a small group of people's wrongdoings to that entire race/religion being bad because of that

Does that mean we can't support the troops?!

Condoning violence in exchange for cheap gas is the very essence of America. I think that one gets a free pass.

I wish the government would just be honest about this.

"Look do you guys want cheap energy or not? Do you want cheap food and cheap clothes or not? Do you want to live in the lap of luxury or not? If you do, then some brown people are gonna die. Thats the price."

Im betting Americans would still gladly pay that price.

soylent brown is people.

Sir, I am using that now. Good analysis!

It's just a false dichotomy. We could grow the economy much faster with cooperative economic development than wars for oil.

Not necessarily true. You can grow your personal economy really fast by loading up with debt and spending it all at once then borrowing even more when the it comes time to pay it back. There's a lot of growth to be had if you just pretend debt doesn't count (or you profit from the debt).

There's a lot of growth to be had if you just pretend debt doesn't count

That's not growth.

Personal economics doesn't translate well to national economics but there is no doubt government borrowing can boots GDP. If you want to end these constant expeditionary wars just pass a balanced budget amendment. Having to pay for them now versus borrowing would kill a lot of blood lust in DC.

Personal economics doesn't translate well to national economics

Proof, please. Not wasting money, investing in productive activities, etc. are applicable to all economies.

there is no doubt government borrowing can boots GDP.

Of course. But you have to invest it in productive investments that grow your capital faster than the interest rate you're paying. Build roads, or a hyperloop, or a space elevator, and you'll grow the economy.

But borrowing for war doesn't grow your capital stock at all.

I agree with everything you just said which is why it is curious that there is such a demand for war. There is a a productive side to war spending (research and what not as well as potentially adding trade partners) but the destructive side surely outweighs it.

The trick is to artificially suppress interest rates and pay for the debt via inflation so that it is less noticeable. That's the standard play. If inflation numbers start getting too high then you just change the formula. It's short term economic activity that is paid for over years but it gives a nice little boost hence the parallel to a personal credit card.

I don't look at it any differently than Bush's tax rebate or the cash for clunkers. Definitely not productive investment but it yields a short term gain for the sitting politicians with a price to be paid by someone else. I'm obviously very dubious of certain branches of economic thought but it is partly for the reason that these theories seem to promote entering war recklessly.

potentially adding trade partners

This is why they fight wars. Maintain the dollar as the reserve currency, which lets you buy physical goods while not giving equal value in return.

The trick is to artificially suppress interest rates and pay for the debt via inflation so that it is less noticeable.

The trick is to build infrastructure and create real, long-term economic growth higher than your cost of capital. Like a hyperloop, or space elevator.

I fully agree that infrastructure is a worthwhile long term investment. I sort of think there are a lot of overblown theories on the reserve currency thing though. My opinion is that the reserve currency status just simply comes from the position of being a stable government and economy mixed with being the largest market and having the largest military so it isn't by choice and it can't be undone as quickly and easily as some theories would suggest. The US Dollar is the reserve currency mostly because there isn't much of an alternative (Brexit shows the clear problem with the Euro since it can be theoretically rolled back by a vote). The reserve currency situation does ensure that the costs of war via inflation are spread to other countries which is another reason I find it so dishonest and evil. Just my theories as an arm chair economist.

Look into Libya. Gaddafi had to be removed suddenly when he tried to create his own currency.

I'm not terribly informed about the circumstances there but it seemed to be the French who were really driving the regime change effort. The timing also seemed more likely to be because of the Arab Spring.

I just don't think a new Libyan currency would pose any threat to the US. I don't see China suddenly deciding to hold Libyan currency instead of US treasuries for example. From what I remember it seemed he was trying to come up with a pan-Arab or pan-African currency but even still, would you trust them to be able to stable group? Those regions are way too volatile. If the Euro isn't stable enough because of its political construction then an Arab or African union certainly wouldn't be.

I never really dove in to deep looking into it though because I dismissed the premise so I could be way off in my understanding of it.

I'm not terribly informed about the circumstances

Well, go ahead and get informed. The last thing I would want is for you to blindly accept what I'm saying. At best, "trust, but verify" is a good course of action.

I will. I've been interested in how much CIA was involved there anyways so it is something I've been meaning to read more about. That whole episode in Libya seems to be way more important than I thought at the time as it keeps popping up in other things I've been reading about lately.

https://larouchepac.com/20150910/un-documents-war-crimes-obama-s-operatives

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/confirmed-u-s-armed-al-qaeda-topple-gaddaffi.html

http://countercurrentnews.com/2017/01/declassified-emails-nato-killed-gaddafi-to-stop-libyan-creation-of-gold-backed-currency/

Im betting Americans would still gladly pay that price.

Of course. We just don't like being reminded of it, that's all.

To that end, if would be of great assistance if folks help us by quickly reporting all rule violations to the modmail

Do you want us to report when someone makes a "clever" shill accusation? It seems like posts only get removed when someone literally says "you are a shill." I've reported a lot of posts where people try to heavily imply that someone is a shill, even past the point of plausible deniability. But those posts don't get removed

This thread is about inciting violence. Report what you want and let the mods decide.

This thread is about violence, but if you read the part I quoted, we're being encouraged to report all rule violations. I want to know what constitutes a rule violation

Oh, ffs. Report what you think is a violation and let the mods sort it out. They get to make the judgment of what they feel is a violation or not. I'm quite certain relevant context plays a role in the determination and it isn't cut and dried.

This thread, on the other hand, is cut, dried and serious. Do you really have to muddy it like this?

I'm not trying to muddy anything. The exact opposite actually, I'm looking for clarity. No need to get so upset.

I think the constant shill accusations contribute to the hostility of this sub, and they are counterproductive to constructive dialog.

I would give this comment gold but......

Sorry to jest but I know exactly what you are talking about. I report them. Ive even reported a mod for it. Just keep reporting

I would suggest all users of r/conspiracy to look into the N.A.P. (Non-Aggression Principle) The more people that accept the NAP as the foundation of human interaction, the better our world will be.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 101464}

this dovetails nicely with the first Yama of yoga's 8 limbs

The issue with 'NAP' is how to define 'aggression'. There are some things that are obviously aggressive, such as saying, 'I'm going to kill you if you don't give me money'. Other things are not quite so obvious, such as walking around in a large group and making 'visits' to particular places.

Until the act of force or violence is brought forth, any aggression (meaning force) is wrong. Being an active, assertive and observant lessen the risk. We'll never have Utopia, that place is a fairytale. The NAP is certainly a way forward I can agree with, but to each his own.

Whenever someone describes the NAP as being difficult to apply, I find they are being deliberately disingenuous in order to justify otherwise-unjustified violence.

Walking around in large groups? Maybe aggressive, but not a situation for self defense. Making "visits"? Same. I might tend to leave rather quickly, but executing violence in "self defense" in these situations is not appropriate.

You described two scenarios. What about the plethora of others? What about the fact that violence simply does exist all around us at all times in many forms? Have we simply forgotten this?

Feed the starving and stop bombing places like Yemen, and I'll give the NAP a try. Until then, best play it cool, see?

I'm not sure what your point is. Mine still stands: people seeking to introduce ambiguity into the NAP are usually trying to justify their own non-justifiable wish for violence.

I can't do anything about Yemen except try to pay as little as possible in taxes and starve the beast.

I'm working on feeding the starving but it takes time.

What's your point?

Violence is rampant. That is my point. They want to privatise the entire Afghan war!

Yes, which says nothing at all about whether the NAP is feasible or practical, just that our political institutions do not recognize it.

Yet that simply is the point. When people start off their personal philosophy with the phrase, "In a perfect world," I get upset. I then remind them the world isn't perfect, and they act like they don't understand.

Burrying your head in the sand won't save the world you love from being taken from you.

The NAP isn't about burying your head in the sand. It's about not going and punching Nazis until they actually become a threat, but having utterly sufficient will and capability to bury them once they do become a threat.

Right, and thank you for pointing that out so we can move to the next part of the debate. It's about Intel. How do you get your Intel? Can you confirm or deny any of it? If not, your NAP plans may be I'll conceived, because you would not know, would you?

So in effect, those lacking knowledge remain on the sidelines in their minds, while the lines get moved and a whole world gets swept up into violence against the illusion of the last remaining threat to society. So ironic, when all of the old threats are still very real.

Through Operation Paperclip, the USA assimilated many Nazi scientists. Wouldn't you know it, there have been Nazis around the world since, and in the camps of Zionism and now the Ukraine, all thanks to America. You weren't ready for all that, though, were you?

You are unprepared, and you are not ready, and you don't seem to have what it takes, to get things done. So keep your NAP Right next to your armchair. No problem. I seek a more active approach to solving the world's problems.

No it's not violence. I believe people must find a new way to live, for the very system under which they live free ranged, is becoming increasingly hostile. A collective will seeks to take away the minds of many. By then it will be too late for your NAP.

What will you do, when the levy breaks? Small arms will not be enough. Organizations of 500,000 men won't be enough. Laser weapons and drones, cyber warfare and space weapons, will ensure world order. Then a New Dark Ages will come, clothed in false light..

I thought this discussion about NAP was about how the Nazis should make the choice to not descend to violance unless in actual self defence?

It's about both. But in this case, both sides are bad guys, so what the NAP really means is just staying the fuck away and let them duke it out mano-a-mano.

I really don't think a group of people who's main goal is to "kill all the Jews" are really going to accept the NAP.

Sorry, are we talking about a regime out of history or a philosophy concerning a way of life and governance? "killing all the jews" is a general way of talking about a result of a succession of actions committed by a regime.

To me that is like saying that supporting British troops today requires them to come to the same conclusions that the british military did during the first world war and must approach all current affairs in the same way they did during history.

The question is, how do you know when you get to the point that violent self defense is necessary. Some would say we are well past that point - the Founding Fathers revolted over less.

That decision has always been yours to make. You are a free human, despite what the government says.

Merely pointing out that the N.A.P. doesnt really illuminate the right course of action because "self-defense" can be so broadly interpreted.

Not really. Defense is the act of defending against an attack. No attack, no defense. Pretty self explanatory, if you ask me. The NAP does not allow for preemptive strikes.

I would say the act of self-defense is pretty self explanatory. Until the act of force or violence is committed against you, you have nothing to defend yourself from. Preemptive strikes are not allowed under the NAP, unless in the face of direct threat of violence.

For instance, if witness someone waving a knife around saying he's going to cut someone, you would have the right to eliminate that threat even though he never attacked you.

Waving a Nazi flag around is not a direct threat of violence. Posting "punch a Nazi" memes is closer to a direct threat, but is not a direct threat.

I am in medicine and we have strict rules about this, rules which might be helpful here. We ask about suicidality and homicidality. If someone admits to having thoughts of killing or hurting others, it triggers other questions to determine whether there is a credible risk of violence. A question string might look like this (copied from a Violence Risk Assessment questionnaire from California State University):

1. Have you ever had thoughts of hurting anyone? 
2. If you wanted to hurt someone how would you do it? 
3. Have you ever thought about killing someone? 
4. Have you thought about killing someone in the past? 
5. Do you have thoughts of hurting or killing someone now? 
6. How often do you think about it? 
7. Do you have a plan? 
8. Are you planning on hurting _______? 

Means, motive, opportunity. Specifics, not generalities, indicate an actionable call to violence.

Now with that said, if someone is posting about "punch a Nazi", I think that qualifies as "threatening" and should be banned. If someone is posting pro-Nazi crap, I don't think that qualifies, but if they are posting virulently anti-Semitic material that again qualifies as "threatening" and should be banned.

Just my 2 cents, not that it matters.

Thank you for you insight. Everything you said is reasonable and pretty much falls in line with this sub-reddit's code of conduct.

Unfortunately, due to nature of this sub and the visitors it seems to attract, not everyone abides by the rules. Have to give it to the mods on that one. While not perfect, they have to walk a fine line between free and open dialogue, and censorship of inflammatory rhetoric. It's not a job I would I want.

Out of curiosity, what kind of person is both violent enough and stupid enough to answer those questions with anything other than "no".

And what steps do you take if they do?

I wondered the same thing until I saw it happen. The fact of it is, "stupid" has nothing to do with it, and "violent" ... well ... look around you. Sometimes people get that way.

You'd be surprised what people admit to. If someone is plotting something consciously and with full control of their faculties in good mental health, I suspect they might not admit it in a doctor's office, but if it is associated with mental illness, yeah people will admit to it. It's a relief to admit it to someone, really.

As for what you do, it depends a lot on the potential victim, the individual situation, the urgency of the situation, and the clinic. It varies from nothing at all, to "duty to warn" under the Tarasoff decision, to calling for emergency police right away.

There are lots of interesting things that individual facilities do in these sorts of situations in order to protect life+limb and minimize corporate liability.

When they answer wrong? Free overnight stay with CPEP

Why do you draw a distinction for anti-Semitic material?

Is that the only non physical threat that you would classify as threatening? Or are there more? If someone is virulently racist against black people shouldn't they also be banned for being threatening? What if they are virulently racist against whites?

Because that's the rage right now. Waving any flag (with some exceptions, like a flag bearing a direct call for violence) is not a direct threat of violence. It may be offensive as fuck and people may be frightened, but is entirely different, legally and ethically.

Waving a swastika? Not threatening. Waving an ISIS flag? Not threatening. Waving a flag that says, "Kill All Nazis"? Maybe threatening. Waving a flag that says, "Death To Jews"? Maybe threatening.

Yeah, signs saying "kill" and "death to" are closer to threats. But you previously indicated that the only non threatening speech that should be banned is anti-semitic statements. Are you walking that back now and saying someone can be racist against all groups as long as they don't promote violence, or are you still saying that there is a special protection for only one group?

But you previously indicated that the only non threatening speech that should be banned is anti-semitic statements.

No, you made that up. Confirmation bias, I get it, but I did not say that. I was giving examples, not creating exclusive/inclusive definitions.

You were clearly drawing (an apt) distinction between threatening violence and other acts that may be disgusting or repulsive, but don't threaten bodily harm.

So it doesn't make sense that you would then undermine that and say, well, there are lots of other examples of non violent speech that must be banned, like anti semitism, etc.

So the exception you introduced at the end needs to be clarified for your distinction to mean anything because the exception can easily swallow the rule in this situation.

I'm not sure where you are going wrong. Anti-semitism is nothing special. If it does not threaten direct violence, it is protected as free speech. If it directly threatens violence, it is incitement and not protected.

"Punch a Nazi" is the same as "Punch a Jew." Probably incitement, probably not protected.

I've never seen a "punch a Jew" post here or anywhere.

How much anti-Semitism shows up here in /r/conspiracy? (Quite a bit more than on /r/the_donald, I can tell you that much for sure.) How much of it borders on calls to violence against Jews?

borders on

Sounds like you are "bordering on" making a subjective judgment of what material "calls for violence." I'll repeat what you might find to be a stunning assertion.

I have NEVER seen any calls to violence against Jews on r/conspiracy.

I have. Plenty.

And like I predicted, you have not provided the evidence for it.

Waving an ISIS or Nazi flag isn't threatening?

One flag represents a group of people who want to put non-muslims to the sword. The other represents a group of people who want to put all non-whites in ovens.

I'd say waving either means you support the above sentiments.

A flag might say "punch a Nazi" but Nazi scream out a far more threatening and complex message.

More complex, yes. Threatening, sure. But not a direct threat of violence, and therefore protected as free speech.

Waving an ISIS flag is free speech. That's how free speech works. Humanity isn't always good, and if we want to keep our children from getting caught up in evil, they need to see it for what it is.

I disagree that it is self-explanatory. There can be things like invasion of privacy that aren't an act of force or violence but that can degrade ones quality of life significantly. Imagine I had someone following me, watching my every move, including looking in my bathroom stall while I shit. I think that individual would deserve to get punched in the face.

That's where property rights come into play. As mentioned in the NAP, a violation of force against oneself and property is defensible. Anyone spying on you on your property, or with your property (phone/computer) has already used force to gain access to your property. You have the right to defend yourself against that. That is, unless you gave prior consent.

Property should not be included.

So, defense of property is wrong? Seems like you're fighting against the forces of nature here.

Ownership of property, such as a home, and defense thereof is pretty inherent in the animal kingdom. Go try to share a home with a badger, see how long he'll let you stick your arm in it's hole.

Homes/tools/weapons/shoes/clothes (you know, property) is how we humans survive, thrive, and raise our young. Our lives become more enriched by providing for our loved ones with property, this includes intellectual. By moving property rights as defensible you're removing the basis of how we live and take care of each other.

Don't jump to conclusions that the NAP say property is defensible by lethal force. Lethal force is only acceptable when there's a lethal threat.

I don't think a badger has the concept have property. He may defend his space, but not his "property."

Western common law already severely limits the ability to use force in defense of property. You can't shoot someone unless your life is threatened, and even in using lower levels of force it has to be reasonable.

I just put a much lower value on property than life so I don't think it should even be a defense. Fight it out in court or call the police.

I too value life greater than property. Once again, the NAP doesn't say you have the right to use lethal force, just that you have the right to use 'defensive' force. Defense has many applications and degrees, it's not a one size fits all.

I think you're making this out to be a black and white issue, it's not.

I appreciate that you're not a super property rights guy and want to use unreasonable force. My point that it's better to have a rule that you can't use any force. Someone stole your bike and is walking away, you should not use physical force to stop it, call the police and sue the person for it. We wouldn't lose much if we lose the right to use force, and society will be safer. You could still use appropriate force to protect yourself during a theft/robbery. And you can still confront that person ("hey, give me my bike back. I'm calling the police.")

I hear what you're saying, and calling for help is certainly a valid option. I guess I have more faith in the good nature of humanity. The police don't have magic, they are people just like you an me. Shiny badges don't grant special rights.

I'd like to add that just because I'm an Anarchist (Anarcho-Capitalist/Voluntarist) doesn't mean I don't believe in rules. I just don't believe in Rulers. Any society will have common rules people abide by. In Voluntaryism, it's opt-in opt-out, and the free market replacing the State. It's not perfect, but I think it's the most just solution there is.

Now with blockchain technology, the State has become obsolete.

One of the most FAQs I get: Who will hold the records and decide property disputes if not for the State?

Answer: Everyone, it's on the chain.

Freedom's the answer... What's the question?

You sound like users on other subs, they believe it's OK to be violent as long as they interpret the person speech as such. Is that what your trying to say?

Violent delights have violent ends.

The question is, how do you know when you get to the point that violent self defense is necessary.

You dont. Its always a gamble unless its too late. I would give my opinion and guidelines for when self defense with violence is warranted and wise, but that is no longer allowed here.

Some would say we are well past that point - the Founding Fathers revolted over less.

While you may be right or wrong we are no longer allowed to discuss that. If you support one side its clearly at least an endorsement of violence.

The founding fathers lived under a tyrannical monarchy.

We live under a president who can be a jerk sometimes.

Hardly the same thing.

If the founding fathers could see the taxation, war, and police-state surveillance carried out by this government, they would despair, and likely insist that their revolution had alreay failed.

I wouldn't describe the monarchy as "tyranical". And if you've been on this sub for any length of time, you would know that the president is just a figurehead at this point and not what we're talking about here.

You know, conspiracy theories are like religion. We all believe in our individual faiths and we can't always prove them, but we still believe. So I don't know what your personal belief is in who runs the government.

But I do know that 1770 England and the Colonies were much rougher and less free than America today.

Remember, in 1776 it was illegal to even speak poorly of the king. Today we have people actively talking about removing the President via coup without fear of reprisal.

I'd say that we're certainly more free today than we were back then.

We're still not talking about the president. I wonder how far anyone would get once they actively talk about removing those who have actual power, control and influence. The issues that the other user is referring to are far less shallow and obvious.

Income taxes are slavery.

Did the IRS ever whip you because you mouthed off?

Did the IRS ever rape your women?

Did the IRS ever take your newborn child and sell him into a life of slavery?

Are those requirements of slavery? Force servitude is the definition of slavery.

They're not requirements, but certainly tenets.

Who is forcing you to work? Is someone putting a gun to your head and making you work and then taking the fruits of your labor?

Ok, using your logic, 100% of income could stolen by the government. If being robbed of the fruits of your own labor is not slavery, what is?

If you take anyone's logic to the extreme it becomes flawed.

But who's robbing you? Read the social contract. We pay taxes in return for social services. I'm not saying we're not taxed too much, or that I like taxes. But I like the military. I like the police and fire department.

No one is forcing you to work. It wouldn't be fun, but you can survive on the welfare of the government if you wish.

Taxes suck, but we're a long way from the days of indentured servitude and slave labor.

If due to wage decreases over the deacades, you have no retirement, no savings, no income generating property, and you're now 65, but social security just went under, then I think you might be bound to work by the desire to survive, and if your choice is to work until either your body or your mind gives out, lest you die, I think that would be considered slavery. Even in hunter gatherer societies, elderly were respected and taken care of by their community. We are setting up our society to fuck this next generation over in old age.

That's slot of "ifs". And, I think you're romanticizing the olden days.

And no one ever said life wasn't hard. People also died at the ripe old 30 during hunter gatherer days. So you get more life these days, you just have to work longer.

If you're so worried about work and compensation go hang out with the boys and girls on r/latestagecapitalism.

That's slot of "ifs". That's a lot of ifs that unfortunately also will be the reality of a lot of people in the coming decades.

And, I think you're romanticizing the olden days. I think you should consider reading this. Americans produce more and receive less than ever before in the history of the country. That's not romantic, it's a quantifiable, economic fact.

And no one ever said life wasn't hard. People also died at the ripe old 30 during hunter gatherer days. So you get more life these days, you just have to work longer.

I think you should consider reading this. From the article, "A common misconception that exists today is that the lifespan of early humans was extremely short. Often people quote numbers like 30 years as the average life span of early hunter gatherers and farmers. A look at modern day hunter-gatherer societies is the best way to examine the likely life span of early humans." Now obviously in many of the examples they give, these hunter gatherers will have access to a lot of life saving technology that their ancestors did not. That's an important factor to consider. For the most part though, our modern society improves life expectancy simply because it reduces infant mortality rates. That's a massive factor to consider. If you made it to adulthood in an ancient hunter gatherer society, your odds of living to a ripe old age were about as good as they are now.

If you're so worried about work and compensation go hang out with the boys and girls on r/latestagecapitalism.

No, I'm fine doing so here.

You know what they call a single story or theory that refutes the common understanding of a subject? A curiosity.

But sure, wages haven't kept up with inflation. And that sucks. But yet again - that doesn't equate to slavery.

As I said earlier, life is hard. And it's not always fair.

And if you think this system is so bad, what's your alternative? I'd genuinely like to hear your thoughts on a better socioeconomic system.

But sure, wages haven't kept up with inflation. And that sucks. But yet again - that doesn't equate to slavery.

The only thing preventing our current system from being a form of slavery is the fact that you can leave the system as it stands and won't be killed or punished for doing so. You can go live somewhere outside the clutches of government in the wild parts of the world without persecution from the society you leave. You're right it's not technically slavery, it's just damn near close.

As I said earlier, life is hard. And it's not always fair.

Oh, we definitely agree on this point.

And if you think this system is so bad, what's your alternative? I'd genuinely like to hear your thoughts on a better socioeconomic system.

A better socioeconomic system than capitalism? I never suggested such a thing, but I have no doubt mankind will have to find an alternative in order to survive, as this current system is destroying itself without the help of external pressures just fine. In general I believe if we want to survive we'll have to find a way to provide a check and balance to the powers of the market and the state. We need a third power, clearly articulated, in order to bring those other two into balance. Technically there already is a balance there, it's the people, but the people have been asleep for a long time. I think there needs to be a structured communal organization, like a public organization owned by the human community that is subject to direct democracy and free from tax levying. It's just one idea, I have no idea if it would work, but I do think that whatever solution we propose will need to empower people to be more autonomous and involved in decision making in the market and the government both.

you're right, it's not technically slavery, it's just damn near close

It's not close. Not by a mile. The reason I'm sticking on this is that when you exaggerate the problem, no one takes you seriously. We're not slaves. We can come and go as we choose. We have options and rights. We have social mobility.

Things need to change. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I think we're ultimately going to see a major division in class, probably in the next 25-75 years. We're eventually going to see the end of the middle class and reduced social mobility. The gulf between the haves and have nots will magnify. I'm thinking that by the year 2100, America will look very similar to Mexico / Brazil socially and economically.

kay

Was going to make a similar comment but you beat me to it.

Would the mods ban a quote like the following:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Thomas Jefferson

Nearly no one believes that, fortunately. Its completely impractical and basically serves to preserve power as it is and not based on any merit to society. Consequentialism is far superior, IMO.

I'd say there's more and more of us that believes this everyday. One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas. ;)

The religion of Statism, with it's dogmatic practices, gospel and clergy is dying. It's a parasitical believe structure that places the collective over the individual, and survives solely on theft through force.

You're asking for more of the same and have offered no solutions. The problem with a State power structure is that it can, and will (as history has shown us) become corrupted. The damage a State power can do is always great than the damage an individual can do. The only way to eliminate this threat is to decentralize/destroy the State power structure. While individualism is bound to have complications, denial of the current problems with Statism is disingenuous.

Nearly no one believes that

All true and revolutionary ideas that have raised humanity to new levels start in this way.

Ghandi's peaceful resistance is passive aggressiveness. Ayn Rand calls it going on strike. PTB see such actions as violence toward their best interest.

That's not what the word means in reality though. I do agree people lie.

The NAP sounds like a great idea up until someone murders your ass.

I guess the same could be said about the current state of affairs. It's all fun and games until the government murders your ass or beats your ass locks you in a cage.

If anything, the odds of me getting murdered goes down in a society following the NAP.

If anything, the odds of me getting murdered goes down in a society following the NAP.

Provided a person or group of people don't see the NAP as a sign of weakness. It sounds great if you can get everyone on board, but good f'n luck.

People will naturally gravitate to which ever society they want to live in. It's called Spontaneous Order. Force isn't necessary, it's a concept most Statists have a hard time understanding.

Think of the fibinachi sequence, like in the spirals of sunflowers. There's a natural, underlying order to this Universe. If left alone, it's ability to flourish is unleashed.

Yes, sometimes life gets a bit messy and chaotic. But that's just life. Any attempt to mitigate life's inherent risks through laws has negative and unforeseen consequences.

For example, look into the rise of motor vehicle deaths after they imposed seatbelt laws... They were trying to save lives... Oh well.

Just like the spiral of the sequence, human society wants to flex, fold and bend. Change is really the only constant you can depend on. Government restricts this natural order and delays change through force, which always has consequences. This builds tension in the society, and if sustained for a long enough time breaks the society (most of the time violently).

Think about the lives that have been ruined over prohibition, of the past and the present.

There's a better way forward, but it's going to take the strong few to stand up and live what they preach. It's just a matter of time for the herd to catch up.

For example, look into the rise of motor vehicle deaths after they imposed seatbelt laws...

Quick search turned up nothing, point me in the right dir?

As for the rest, I agree with you but there will always be sociopaths and they will take advantage of those who trust them.

stealing my labour value violates the nap

Agree completely. Unfortunately, many people don't understand what "aggression" means, just like they don't understand what "defense" or "violence" means. Words are never "violence", no matter what is said, no matter what anyone claims, no matter what any judge or court says.

I wonder if Thomas Jefferson would get banned from here, and on reddit:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

-Thomas Jefferson

🤔

Probably

The thought of that blows my mind. We have truly lost our ways as a nation.

If you think about it, Washington, Jefferson, all those guys would be considered terrorists today. Imagine Ben Franklin in gitmo lol

Right? How fucked up is that. The very people who gave us this country would be black bagged in the middle of the night and hauled of to gitmo for discussing their ideas. I'm kind of sick and tired with this country, tbh.

Hench my username.

Bro, two hours ago you said we shouldn't have fought the Nazis. Was that not patriots fighting against tyrants for liberty. Lol.

Yea, that was none of our business.

Was that not patriots fighting against tyrants for liberty

Last time I checked, Germany never attacked the US, nor were we ever attacked in WWI.

Which brings me to another quote by the same man:

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

-Thomas Jefferson

The highlighted tidbit is what got us into the wars.

I, for one, am happy we entered the war to fight the Nazis.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

-Thomas Jefferson

Welp, you're a traitor to the constitution, then.

Oh, sure.

The way we got into that war was treasonous, also damn near everything follow it was, as well. Like the perpetual state of war we are still in today. Was some tyrant on a different continent worth giving up all of your natural born rights, not to mention the loss of life Americans endured?

How were my natural born rights taken away by the United States fighting Hitler? Cause I'm pretty sure some people would argue it was the other way around...

We live under a perpetual state of war, since then. We have no rights, only privileges. Look it up.

Damn man, I wish Hitler would have won now! I'm with ya.

The military-industrial complex was born out of that conflict, which has become the de-facto unelected and unchallengeable government for America and the globe.

So, we have another "We shouldn't have stopped Hitler" supporter. I'll add it to the scoreboard.

Strawman. Stopping Hitler did not necessitate the creation of a military-industrial complex which then takes over government.

1) Do you think we should have entered the war?

2) Do you think Hitler would have been stopped had there been no U.S. intervention?

I don't know the answer to either of those questions. My history book told me we should have entered the war. My own investigations say that the war was already largely decided before we entered, thanks to the Soviets.

Regardless, we should not have created the MIC and allowed it to take over our government.

Germany declared war on the U.S. and attacked our allies. Despite all the crap people say about France, they helped us win the revolution and it was right to come to their aid.

Germany declared war on us after Japan "attacked" us, which lead to declaring war on Japan. Germany did it because they were allies with Japan. There's more deeper to it obviously, being that the Nazis were created by Rome.

The US needed to become the world military super power for Rome, and this is how it was accomplished. Which is why we brought top Nazis back to the US. Th creation of Israel was a big part of this plan as well.

Tri-Sovereign States.

Technically, cutting an Apple or chopping down a tree is violence.

Definition of violence: "Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."

"Behavior involving physical force intended to[...]damage[...]something."

Yeah, asking for someone to be arrested is technically condoning violence because being arrested is hurtful to a person.

When will all the violence against apples be put to an end? ^/s

Only once they're extinct!

Yet calling for someone to be arrested is not without grounded evidence for that particular process.

What has happened recently that is so much worse than the shit that happens every single fucking day on this planet? Why the selective outrage?

So some people died or were hurt because some crazy person did a thing? BFD. Welcome to planet Earth. It literally happens every day.

The world in 2017...

The future of safe space

Give that lad VR, and I'm afraid that is the future we are looking at.

Ahh those would be provided by Facebook no doubt. That's an ominous thought..

Welcome to Costco, I love you.

Haha Great documentary.

Indeed. Best documentary since 1984, and they live.

I'll play your devils advocate for a minute....

What has happened recently that is so much worse than the shit that happens every single fucking day on this planet?

The alt-right has spent the last 12+ months calling some of the left's movements ultra violent (BLM, antifa, etc) while holding themselves up as the paradigm of peaceful virtuous reason. Charlottesville happens and the left is using that as a YOU'RE MORE VIOLENT THAN US example

The fallacy is that any of these movements are new and neither side has ever been particularly peaceful. There's a long history of extreme right vs extreme left violence. It had died down somewhat as of recently but it's been around for a long long time

Both sides at Charlottesville were led by paid operatives. This whole thing is completely fake.

Go ask your neighbors if they think Hitler was right.

I don't and won't rule out the paid operative narrative.However, I don't think anyone meant for that dude to run people over. That did happen. I think some of the organizers planned for a bit of violence limited to rocks, sticks, and fists. Fields acted on his own and was enabled by a poisonous ideology.

I've known and still tangentially know people who unironcally consider themselves to be neo-Nazis and they hang out with like-minded folks. It's a real thing.

Fields acted on his own

I don't believe in lone gunman coincidence theories. As a category.

I don't generally either, but I'm willing to let this one be until actual evidence crops up that something is off. There's a lot of circumstantial problems with the official story, but it's tough to tell how much of that is simply confirmation bias.

The world is chaotic and there are always weird coincidences and things that don't match up. That is the baseline! Nothing is normal, if you look hard enough, and when you have thousands and thousands of people poring over every detail, all the weird little anomalies pop up.

Hhmm... so your saying that when i protest against racism, i will get paid?

Highly doubt that.

Some people just believe in love instead of hate. I know plenty of people against racism that are not paid or led by some shadow group.

Why do you think they were operatives? There are white supremacists in America and those against them. They exist and thus protest and counter protest. Why is a conspiracy needed?

Are you being obtuse on purpose, did you forget about the violent demonstrations preventing speaking framing speaking at several University's? I think it very disingenuous to say only one group was/is violent.

What has happened recently that is so much worse than the shit that happens every single fucking day on this planet? Why the selective outrage?

Other subs are getting banned.

Can we still discuss the Boston Harbor politically motivated property damage?

You could create a new post if you have a conspiracy not related to the discussion at hand.

Ah, just try to reach your arms around the issue framed by Peter Gelderloos who points to the historically violent protests such as the Boston Tea Party and argues that the elites have worked long and hard to de-legitimize all forms of "violence" in modern society. He concludes that this is designed to support the existing status quo.

This should be the top post in the sub, unfortunately there are to many libruls here.

If the establishment has worked long and hard to de-legitimize all forms of violence, then good on them. It makes perfect sense in modern society. Imagine The United States of America facing something like a civil war, or a violent resistant/revolution. It would destabilize the entire world. Hundreds of millions would likely die, and the power vacuum would be filled in part by other nations such as Russia and China, that have created far more restriction on liberty than we have.

Would it be inappropriate to post the Declaration of Independence?

There is this guy at work that wants to know.

Good move!

Old guy here. I had to look up doxxing. I also don't know what half these "IST" , "phobic" , etc terms mean. No one denies protesters being paid to show up and cause trouble. I hope cooler heads prevail , but we have lots of folks stirring the pot.

we have lots of folks stirring the pot.

boy ain't that the truth. I kind of think a lot of people don't realize the harm they do when they stir the pot, even just to let some steam off

The mod team will not allow outside groups to manipulate comment/submissions scores with the aim of sowing discord among the userbase of this subreddit, and we are actively working with the site administrators to put a stop to this outside manipulation.

But how are the poor shills going to earn their $7 an hour now?

I've just spent like three days arguing with people from other subs about cultural Marxism and capitalism. A majority of Reddit are Cultural Marxists. They blame everything on capitalism, and when you ask them what capitalism is- they might list one attribute. They have no idea that every pillar of capitalism in America has been undermined.

My favorite are the folks who protest that "cultural Marxism" is just a critique of mass-market capitalist culture. Umm, yeah, exactly. When you consider these assholes believe heterosexuality to be an artifice of mass-market capitalist culture, then we are saying the exact same thing and in total agreement, now GTFO.

What does that have to do with the title

https://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/

Again. The title is about following sub rules and not inciting violence. It has nothing to do with the silly conspiracy of cultural Marxism and the bizarre idea that "capitalism" has been undermined when we live in a capitalist society.

Great! No more endoresements of political parties or candidates! No more advocating for taxation and war! Leave everyone else alone can all be free now!

This is the best rule change in the history of this sub andd possibly reddit itself. Too bad it wont come close to being enforced.

I can honestly say I'm proud to be a member of this community today. Look at the front page- awesome content.

Newer member here as well. I appreciate all of the forward moving conversation and lash from "interrupters". Get a good idea on how we Americans really think, feel, act and rationalize.

thats right, if you wanna change the world you gotta do it by posting shit on the internet :)

support our troops

Great post. It's a shame some users have clearly decided to comment without bothering to read it.

So many hate-filled and bigoted opinions on display by those with a clear agenda to discredit this sub.

"THEY" want violence from us. Don't do it!!!

Alright CNN calm down. Don't think I've seen one endorsement of violence on this sub ever.

I dont get how cnn is banned yet fox and briebart is not? Fucking boggles my mind.

Because partisan nonsense. "Oh our base follows this news channel, promote it heavily." Any news channel on tv is pretty much compromised garbage.

what about people getting paid to birddog?

If you look at history most major changes happen after bouts of extreme violence. But don't do that.

Since when is that a big enough problem here that we need a sticky for it?
I've seen like one comment in the past six months that fits that description.

How about calls for violins?

Threats of violence also mean material for potential blackmail. I've only learned the Non-Aggression Principle in the last year after years of anger problems, because my behaviour both online and offline got completely out of control, so I've had to work huge time on myself. I'm likely going to struggle with mental illness for the rest of my life but I can at least say I'm no longer violently aggressive and thin-skinned. Working out is helping me build confidence, I just have to make sure I keep working out.

Awesome post man... Good job guys!

Lieber Code

But what if I really don't like the guy?

Looking at you, Brady.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA, good joke there mate.

This post is a well-timed and welcome reminder. Though its a damn shame it needs to be said at all.

Not sure how some people are managing to criticize this post by the mods. Is there ever a bad time to make a call against violence and for higher quality discourse?

If this sub Reddit wasn't owned by bullshit artists this post would be defunct.

RikkiTikkiTavi

First off to all those whom stick to NAP. I do favor these ideals, I do. Yet, why give quarter to an opponent that clearly has given you none. This, present day westernized nations, is a dying mode of civilization. We need to pay as little, and as most, attention as we can to this. There has been no forgiveness on their part. There will be no forgiveness on mine. Therefore, little should be spilled towards their direction. This thought process is dying and as with all dying things, it is fighting back with a last ditch effort. So keep a solid eye fixated on and exposing real stories. The battles now are not fought with guns and swords but with 1's and 0's.

Of course, this is unless they are directed at the current president at which point Reddit conveniently turns its head.

We should let the legal system handle pizzagate

More people should upvote this sticky. haha -- kidding, this is a free reddit after all--

"As shown by the Indictment of the major war criminals, Julius Streicher is to be tried in common with the other major war criminals and also for acts committed by himself, including, in particular, the incitement of the persecution of the Jews- set forth in Count One and Count Four of the Indictment.

Thus, Streicher must bear the personal responsibility in the first place, for deriding the Jews, for their being tortured and murdered as a direct result of his propaganda and of that of his followers."

cacophonous

Today's word is...

It's almost certainly a provocateur when they do that. So I will state unequivocally that I am opposed to violence. Carry a camera. The truth is your sword.

Lol..since this shit site was created, there have always been calls to violence in some form. Go on any thread involving black people in one of the news subreddits and some backwoods fucking retard will always be on there talking about how the ape needs to be hanged. There are many of these. Nothing has ever been done about it.

Don't for one second act like you don't notice this either. Go look at any muslim thread, half the comments are calling for all muslims to be exterminated.

But of course, that's okay because it furthers the agenda of this website. Reddit is nothing more than a propaganda tool and i feel like a fucking idiot for even taking time out of my day to type this or even read anything on this cesspool.

Side note, this sub has been utter shit for over a year now.

Does this apply to Missouri senators?

punch a nazi

but calls to violence is what led this country through the toughest time it's ever faced -why is now any different?

We should let the legal system handle it.

Subconscious propaganda:

1. How it has been implemented historically by corporations, governments, and interest groups.

2. The psychology behind the acceptance of propaganda by societies/groups/people.

3. Most importantly: How can we develop a methodological approach towards identifying and counteracting subconscious propaganda.

C'mon guys, no free exchange of ideas, ok?

\sigh*

\zips back guillotine*

Mods you guys get a lot of shit for the work you all do. It is pretty thankless business, so yeah thanks for all that you do.

The only thing I get really concerned about is when new initiatives, rules, guidelines, or precedents are set and then are used as a pretext to shut down free discussion by one group or another. I have seen this done on many web boards, including a subreddit in the last year. It is chilling to be perfectly honest, and it starts to make you feel paranoid. You start to think that you are crazy because multiple voices of dissent to the corporate/globalist agendas are slowly getting strained away. Censorship is done in clever and insidiously sneaky ways. As a result, whenever I see that new mods are being added, or if there is a temporary shutdown of the board, or if new and sudden rules are put in effect, or whatever, I get really nervous. Anyways I think I can trust many of the mods here and hope that you have goodwill towards freedom of expression, even ugly, evil, or unpopular kinds. We must talk to one another, and reason together. We must realize that our enemies became our enemies for a reason. That nazis and commies did not crawl out from under a bunch of rocks. Radical ideologies give purpose and meaning in these strange times. The economy is in a terribly unhealthy state, made worse by a cold, amoral, and dangerous progress towards globalization, where we are not at all represented, and the corruption is not even disguised. Identity politics is played by collectivists and students of relatively new and critiqued social theories. I frequently see race and sex being used as weapons of division in these kinds of beliefs, particularly on the left end of the spectrum. On the right end of the spectrum, the pernicious and monstrous white nationalism and white identity are creeping forward. Both kinds of identity politics will further breed one another and we are dangerously close to an irredeemable situation. I cannot see a way out of this mess we have got ourselves in if we cannot learn to listen to one another and keep on belittling one another's grievances. If folks of all sides will not humble themselves, then we are facing race riots, states of emergancies, slaughters, confiscation of weapons and properties, the destruction of civil liberties, and ultimately the crumbling of the rights and privileges American citizens have enjoyed for hundreds of years.

One or another of these thoughts race through my head all the time, and especially when I see bastions of free exchange in ideas start to disappear. I pray to the Lord this place does not become one of them.

We are at a mexican standoff, and nobody is willing to lower their weapons. People have to be man and woman enough to lower their guard and face ideas that might disgust, shock, or terrify them. They have to empathize with why these thoughts are entertained. People have to see that everyone is capable of losing their heads in just these kinds of times just because we have grown so far apart from one another, and that is the last thing that needs to happen.

Oh America I love you, and I love all Americans. Progressive brothers and sisters, conservative and traditional brothers and sisters, we have to TALK to one another and we MUST tolerate one another. A multicultural society cannot function without tolerance. I have seen folks on both extremes write in disgust about tolerance, saying it is not a virtue, and it is only appeasement. These are the words of an ideologue, and of a fanatic. Wake up Americans!

I am so glad this was posted. And I see that someone already posted about the Non-aggression Principle. I knew I loved this sub.

A subreddit gathering all of the conspiracy minded folks, and training them to report violent dialogue.. sounds like a conspiracy.

I endorse violence against child abusers and illegitimate authority that itself uses violence in the usurpation of rights. I also endorse violence against human traffickers.

Unless they come from Antifa ShareBlue shills, then it's okay.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/declare-george-soros-terrorist-and-seize-all-his-related-organizations-assets-under-rico-and-ndaa-law

The future of safe space

Both sides got violent. And only one side tried to trample on the other sides Constitutional Rights

No, I'm just saying "alt-left" isn't a fair term. Alt-right beliefs are much more clearly defined - it doesn't just mean someone who is very conservative, or someone who is far right republican. It is a specific, more extreme group. If you start using "alt-left", you are going to group some annoying SJW twitterer or tree hugger with Antifa smashing windows during a protest. That isn't fair at all.

How is that racism? You proved his point

Hey if you want to fuck your cousin's more power to you.

lol sad little man. If you think that's racism you just wait kiddo

Because partisan nonsense. "Oh our base follows this news channel, promote it heavily." Any news channel on tv is pretty much compromised garbage.

Did the IRS ever whip you because you mouthed off?

Did the IRS ever rape your women?

Did the IRS ever take your newborn child and sell him into a life of slavery?

So, defense of property is wrong? Seems like you're fighting against the forces of nature here.

Ownership of property, such as a home, and defense thereof is pretty inherent in the animal kingdom. Go try to share a home with a badger, see how long he'll let you stick your arm in it's hole.

Homes/tools/weapons/shoes/clothes (you know, property) is how we humans survive, thrive, and raise our young. Our lives become more enriched by providing for our loved ones with property, this includes intellectual. By moving property rights as defensible you're removing the basis of how we live and take care of each other.

Don't jump to conclusions that the NAP say property is defensible by lethal force. Lethal force is only acceptable when there's a lethal threat.

kay