This opinion empty...

...YEET.

While I'm happy Parker has someone special, now I'm gonna have a huge Parker shaped hole in my heart!

Now this is some good stuff.

To be honest, I realise this is all shown in a very humourous light but I absolutely agree with the underlying point of this image.

When we support the propagation of hateful views and try to enable them under the guise of "free speech", we actually only weaken our democracy and undermine the safety of disadvantaged groups.

"Free Speech" to me, does and has always implied a certain degree of responsible speech. That means not inciting violence like Trump does at his rallies, that means not propagating lies and fake news under the guise of media, such as what Fox News and Breitbart are doing.

And it certainly means not using public platforms as a means of spreading hatred: against the LGBT+ people, against immigrants, against Muslims, against women, against POC, against any number of social groups that are historically persecuted and disadvantaged.

The thing is, when the far-right and other extremists call for free speech, they really don't actually want that. For them, things like democracy and free speech are really just a means to an end. They want to take power and spread their ideology until they can seize control, implement their hateful views, and ultimately silence their opposition.

So, yes, actually, I heavily and unconditionally support restrictions on free speech, because freedom of speech =/= freedom of hate speech.

ministry of truth is calling...

There are big problems with free speech but the problem of not having it is bigger.

Somehow I suspected I'd get a reply like this.

Free speech is something which should be a valued part of any democratic state. Free speech, after all, helps marginalised groups and peoples to speak up for their rights and freedoms.

The problem is, if it's completely unregulated, it just lets extremist groups propagate hatred.

You yourself either come from or reside in Germany or both. And as I'm sure you're aware, modern Germany has rather strict laws on things such as Holocaust denial and any kind of speech or action which glorifies the Third Reich, which most Germans rightly recognise as the most horrendous and evil part of German history.

Your country's government recognises the value of regulating hateful speech and attempts to propagate it, and I think many other countries throughout the world could learn from this example.

So instead of accusing me of being a supporter of some 1984-esque totalitarian state, maybe consider the very real difficulties faced by people in countries such as the UK, the United States, and elsewhere if they are considered part of disadvantaged group. I am a bisexual man, there are people who would literally kill me for my sexual orientation. And I get off pretty easy as a white man with a supportive family. There are plenty of people who face persecution, hatred, and threats to their life on a daily basis.

So no, if you think I'm some fecking totalitarian for not supporting the free speech of people who literally think I should be dead, or think the same of others, then well, that's just too bad.

If you create a Place of Power you will endup with just the wrong people ruling it.

Evil is part of uns humans and we have to learn to manage it. Living in freedom comes with the freedom of people to hate me.

I take that over a burocratic system that will end up being abused to force us into ever shrinkins circles. The purityspiral always ends up with millions of dead and tourured people.

For people in some countries, this is already their reality. Jair Bolsonaro in Brasil, Victor Orban in Hungary, Donald Trump in the United States, just to name a few. You talk about some dark future we might create. This dark future has become our present. Because this is what does happen when a society enables hateful people: they take power and undermine democracy and freedom from within.

You talk about respecting people's freedom to hate you, but that's a contradictory desire. We can't actually have things like democracy and tolerance when some parts of the population literally want to kill other parts of the population. Once again, emphasising my position as a bisexual man, I don't really have the luxury of being able to say "maybe" to the question of do I get human rights and the freedom to exist in my country. I'm fairly insulated from this harsh reality compared to many people, but the fact remains that there are those who would seek to kill me because of who I am and who I love. My support for the free speech rights of others ends when this right is abused to promote violence against myself and other people. That is not something that happens in a tolerant, democratic society, and I think deep down you probably know that.

You talk about the "purityspiral" ending up with people dead and tortured, once again, the things you speak of so fearfully are already happening: there are concentration camps on the US border. Trump's government is signing off on horrendous human rights abuses abroad such as the Saudi intervention in Yemen.

So these horrible things have already started happening, for certain communities in the US, they've actually been happening for a long time.

We have to choose to either take a stand against hatred, or we can refuse to take sides and, in so doing, enable this hatred. It's up to you.

When your speech calls for the extermination or marginalization of people who generally don't have a choice in what they are or have to spend an excessive amount of money to change what they are, you deserve to be silenced and that's all there is to it.

No its not all.
The real problem is who decides today and who tomorrow?

You're so concerned with falling down the slippery slope that you forget humanity is really fucking good at building stairs.

I mean, we often talk about the slippery slope of various issues, but to me, I feel like that thinking implies that people like Donald Trump actually care about things like law and precedent. And the truth is they really don't. They're Chaotic Evil: they might use the law if it benefits them, but they're just as happy to break it and do what they want.

So worrying about what we should do because of what say, Donald Trump might do is something of a moot point: he's already doing awful things, and he's not going to stop.

Let me clarify:

My point of comment wasn't about Donald Trump running roughshod over the very concept of truth.
My point is that everyone ELSE can agree upon some set of standards as to what speech merits disavowal and rejection, in this case blatant and naked hate speech and unjust, racist stereotyping and characterization.

The guy I replied to seems to labor under the delusion that, even though we are already hurtling down one slippery slope w/r/t free speech into another Holocaust, that it is not possible to make any form of common-sense legislation and human fucking decency to prevail.

THAT is the essence of my comment. THAT is what I define building bridges as.

Oh I figured, I'm agreeing with your position. :}

It's the risk of living in a society where there is freedom of speech and expression. Yes, their point of view is utterly deplorable and in an ideal society it wouldn't exist. But what's the alternative? Censorship, repression? Isn't that what the alt-right ultimately want? Sadly it's something the left want to; they call for the censorship of not only alt-right groups but anyone who doesn't agree with the left. When censorship starts where does it end?

I think the best way to deal with the alt-right groups like the Pride Boys is not to roll up with Antifa and smash the heck out of a town and beat up people just because they're slightly to the right of Antifa but instead just ignore them. Or even better turn up and just laugh at them while they spew their hate. That way freedom of speech is preserved on both sides and they are shown their ideology is not accepted by normal people.

Ignoring hatred is a good enough concept... except you're extremely naive if you honestly believe anything in your 2nd paragraph will work. WBC (westboro baptist church) has been mocked at basically every 'protest' they've organized and it hasn't done shit to stop them and they are a SMALL group. Much larger groups will care far less and call anyone who thinks different from them insane instead.

PS freedom of speech ONLY applies to the government, it's time for us citizens to start enacting our right to legally shut people up on private property.

Well governments only give us freedoms they think they can control anyhow and that's always worrisome. As for being naive, maybe but I like to think in the power of positive counter protests that don't end in property damage.

As for shutting people up, where does the censorship end? We censor the Nazis, so there is no more alt-right hate speech. What about Joe Blogs online who agrees with tougher boarder controls? We censor him because he could be using hate speech. What about Jane Smith who thinks trans people should use the bathroom of their birth gender and not of their current gender. Let's censor her as well for hate speech. You only have to look at that Blizzard did in regards to silencing anyone who speaks out against China.

When you call for censorship it becomes a slippery slope.

Let me be brutally blunt: the censorship I'm mentioning is already 100% legal. If someone starts screaming about how the blacks are evil while you are on my lawn (purely as a hypothetical), I am going to have you arrested and there isn't a single thing you can do to stop me other than comply with my demand to be silent and go the hell away. Same goes for your example of jane smith, If they were spouting what I viewed as hate speech in a domain that I had personal control over, they'd be leaving either in handcuffs with a charge of tresspassing, or leaving of their own free volition and never be allowed to return else the former event happens.

What the foolish and bigoted do in a fully public government controlled area do is not my problem (even if it pisses me off).

Mind you what blizzard did falls under a DIFFERENT category and can be argued as (borderline) treason in the form of damaging or hampering the relations between the united states and a foreign power (be it hong kong or another foreign democracy).

Final note in response to what you said: please do not bring up the slippery slope falacy, yes it's entirely possible that one step in that direction will lead to 1984 but that's purely hypothetical and is (in my experience) only an argument designed to say "you're wrong and should feel bad for daring to think that way"

Firstly, I wanted to thank you for taking a respectful tone. Although I do not agree with the points you espouse, you took a more polite tone with me. I notice that, and I appreciate it greatly that you do not stoop to insults.

So I wanted to address this point by point. Censorship to some extent is honestly a completely justified approach to this kind of speech. You might balk at the thought, but it's worth considering that US history has precedent. In 1919, the US Supreme Court ruled in Schenck v. US that it is not lawful to shout fire in a crowded theatre. In other words: it is not lawful to make speech which deliberately and knowingly incites violence or panic (i.e. such as falsely claiming there is a fire in a crowded public place and thus causing a panic). Many countries with a troubled history of far-right extremism, such as Germany, actually very strongly regulate any display or use of Nazi symbols. Germany is a democratic and free society, to claim that only authoritarian states regulate speech is erroneous. In fact, the United States is the outlier: most democratic countries in the world have some form of regulation against hate speech and speech designed to cause violence. In some countries, such as the Netherlands, far-right politicians such as Geert Wilders are actually fined if they make racist or discriminatory comments.

Secondly, your point about Antifa I must politely say is misinformed. Antifa is a broad-based movement that doesn't have centralised leadership in the same way that the Proud Boys do. However, it is frequently (and falsely) used as a counterpoint to alt-right violence when in fact the overwhelming majority of deaths in the US caused by extremist groups is violence perpetrated by the far-right. Before 9/11, the Oklahoma City Bombing, which was perpetrated by a man with extreme racist and white supremacist views, was the most deadly terrorist attack on US soil.

Antifa's philosophy of violence is simply fundamentally different than that of the Proud Boys. Whether or not you agree with it, their own stated philosophy is that violence is solely acceptable in the context of self-defense. The closest Antifa gets to "proactive" violence is the use of things like DDOS attacks and other cyberwarfare to aggressively deplatform the alt-right.

You can argue with or for Antia's approach, but it's important to actually examine the movement's underlying philosophy, beliefs, and its actual operations as opposed to the very distorted "Both Sides!" narrative of it.

We do have to remember that violence in the context of self-defense is something that was also practised by the Civil Rights movement. Martin Luther King's marches were often accompanied by armed groups such as "Deacons for Defense" who provided literal armed escorts to the marches in order to keep local chapters of the KKK or police departments from using violence.

You're welcome, I would never rage on someone if their views differ from my own. Having different points of view means things can be looked at from both sides.

As I said with asae, censorship may be fine but where does it end. How do you classify hate speech? Nazi ideology is a definite example of hate speech, but about a blogger who isn't comfortable with trans people using the bathroom they identity with rather than their birth gender? In many circumstances that is classified as hate speech. So in respect, it should be censored. But that means shutting up someone for having an opinion that doesn't agree with the narrative. And the Nazis themselves used censorship too, it was one of they main weapons fore controlling the will of the people and forcing them to comply with their narrative.

And Antifa does involve itself with violence. It's happened time and time again. Look what happened to Andy Nao a few months back. Doesn't matter if he was left or right wing, the guy was beaten to the point of having a bleed on the brain. That's not the hallmark of peaceful protestors. There is a difference between self defence and turning up to an alt-right rally with pepper spray and baseball bats. They may not counter protest with violence in mind but they are very willing to use it. And their own mind-think is anyone who doesn't agree with them is a facist. I don't agree with them and I'm against facism. So I'm an anti-Antifa-fa. I think. It's confusing

The examples you list could likely be considered prejudiced, if not hate speech. You use the phrase "narrative" and I have to take some exception to that. If that narrative is that LGBT+ people deserve equal rights and legal recognition, and that people who stand against that are in the wrong, then yes, I support that narrative and other narratives which promote equal rights and human dignity.

There are issues where you can argue about different opinions: arguing whether or not the governments should subsidise agriculture or even silly things like cake vs. pie or Star Wars vs. Star Trek. If someone disagrees with me about agricultural subsidies, that's very different than if someone disagrees on the question of human rights and who gets them. Many people in the United States, the UK, and beyond, aren't just facing the issue of their party not winning an election, it's really a fundamental question of who gets to exist and whether or not they get the rights enjoyed by others.

If someone thinks that transgendered people aren't allowed to conform to the gender of their choice, that women should not be able to decide whether or not to have an abortion, that immigrants don't deserve rights, or that same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. Well, that among many other prejudiced opinions is not actually compatible with a tolerant society. To actually have democracy and freedom, we have to accept the basic right to exist of other parts of our society. It's not really possible to have a civil debate on questions of "do non-white people get to have equal rights?" or "does the LGBT+ community deserve recognition and support?" These are questions to which we basically have to answer yes if we want to actually be a free and tolerant society.

You bring up the threat of Nazism and how such suggestions might put us on the path to it, but actually, the modern far-right has quite a lot in common with the Nazis. Hell, there actually are a great many unreformed Neo-Nazis in the modern far-right in the United States and in other countries throughout the world. David Duke, Richard Spencer, take your pick, there's a long and fruitful history of neo-Nazism in the modern US and many elements of this movement have emerged as part of the modern far-right.

Now, as to the matter of what is and is not an acceptable opinion: you're someone who is in a same-sex marriage. I'm sure you would be offended and hurt if someone said you shouldn't have the right to marry the person you love, or that your marriage is any less valid and respectable than that of any heterosexual couple. I hope you don't mind my bringing your own personal life into the matter, but I think it's valid to bring it up in the context of considering a situation from one's own point of view and experiences.

Also, when you speak of Antifa, you speak of it as a very monolithic organisation. But it's actually more accurate to describe Antifa as a movement rather than an organisation. It doesn't have a centralised leadership, strictly-speaking it doesn't even really have a centralised ideology beyond a broad commitment. Literally anyone can put on a t-shirt and say they're part of Antifa. Moreover, the level of actual violence perpetrated by those with even nominal ties to Antifa is simply on a far different level. There hasn't been even a single death attributed to Antifa in even a broad sense. Whereas the US has a history of far-right violence perpetrated by organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan that goes back over a century.

The media loves to rally around the story of Andy Ngo to justify its both sides narrative, but it wasn't an Antifa activist that drove a car into a crowd of protesters at Charlottesville. It wasn't an Antifa activist that went on a shooting spree in a Pittsburgh synagogue. And it's not an Antifa activist who is using the US Presidency as a seat from which to propagate hateful policies and rhetoric which has emboldened violent hate crimes throughout the country.

Initiating serious violence beyond the symbolic (i.e. a harmless physical act such as throwing a milkshake) against Andy Ngo was inappropriate, but nor was Ngo entirely innocent in his actions, considering his longstanding history of provoking incident and then using it as a means to demonise the far-left:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli.....ngo-proud-boys

It doesn't mean the people who attacked him were right, but it does mean that Ngo is not just a hapless victim.

Please explain the "self defense" of someone being attacked for talking on camera?

an appropriate yeet

im all for freedom of speech and stuff but just becus you can speek freely dos not mean you can say something without there being consequences. like you cant going aroundd threatening ppl without getting in trouble whether the threats empty or not

love the yeet yay to boss hoss he a true hero

This actually upset me, because I know there are real people out there who act like that, and it urks me.

nazi furs should be free to say as they will *in public spaces.

...but they are also free to get run out of town and told to fuck off. Freedom of speech simply protects you from government prosecution, and not social consequence.

Nazi fürs need to be told the truth: Nazis would gas them and shoot them. Simple as that. Nazis would never tolerate that group at all. Neither would the real Nazis tolerate most of those that call them self Nazis these days, and would have them shoot or gassed as well.

And also: to protect tolerance and free speech, we have to be intolerant to some folks and deny them free speech, like Nazis. Because if such people get into power again they will get rid of tolerance, and also get rid of free speech.

I wholly agree with you.

Yeah, it's almost like they aren't nazis, but are called that by people that want to discredit and deplatform them.

https://twitter.com/atheist_cvnt/st.....57832546041856

Richard Spenser is a furry?

Sorry that I only respond now...

If you find it amazing and awesome to run around in Nazi clothes, with a symbol that replaces the swatiska.. just because it would be even more obvious that you are a Nazi if you used the swastika.... and use Nazi rhetoric, and often symbols and greetings.. then you sorry to say it... are a Nazi.

it's not because "someone just calls them that way to discredit them" they call those people Nazis because they fing are Nazis, plain and simple. Or well, neonazis to be exact.

"Nazi" rhetoric, such a used an abused term. What hasn't been accused of being a "nazi talking point" recently? (other than left wing identitarianism) Nazi has been reduced to a slur used to discredit anyone opposing the current leftward push of the 'current year'

Refreshing to see people in the community that are aware that nazis are trash.

He should put him under tail.

You can say what ya want, doesn't mean you're free of consequences. Hence why ya can't threaten to murder the president

I'm surprised a horse could say no to such a massive pile of straw :'3

A thoughtful piece.
Parody.
Parker should of known better.
Nazi fur should of known better.
Boss Hoss should of known better and is now going away for 10 to 20 for assault/murder because of Parker's ignorance to the people around him and the situation in his country.
Love dose not win in this picture. It has cost the lives of three people.
But that's just me over thinking this picture. I love the line work in this, inked works are my favorite.
I wish America was not like this but at the end of the day it is.
I hope at the end of the day love dose win and theses groups can shake hands and pat each others backs, go have a beer, and put is all behind them.
Nice work on this Pandottermon. You made me think. :P

What did Parker do wrong? The situation is an anti-Cheeto rally. The nazi fur is the one that failed to read the room.

Stan also routinely eats people alive, you think he’s gonna get in trouble for yeeting a some trash?

Parker did something wrong? Again with this “both sides” nonsense?

How the hell did Parker do anything wrong?

In this pic, the nazi comes up and harasses him, and is thus removed in a comedic over the top manner [the cartoon physics of throwing them away].

lol fuckin brain genius over here.

10/10

I've noticed some people, take freedom of speech and twist it to the idea that. They have right to say what ever they want with out any compunction.
And the moment someone gets up set and tells them to stop, they claim they're being repressed or attacked. Despite their views could very well be hurtful
and or can/has caused civil unrest or undo pain on innocent people

And kudos to our equine power house for NOT imbibing in that..creature. Food poisoning for weeks...

"I don't eat garbage"

Nice

Cause, y'know... jus' bein' kissed by a big horse in itself wouldn't be enough ta win yer heart... He has ta be chivalrous... ;)

A-goddamn-men.

...?

You and I both know that NAZI has been reduced down to a slur used against and political opponent of the left no matter how milktoast. The logic of 'if I'm anti-fa then all my enemies must be fa' is as common as it is wrong.

How many Burned Furs do you think were called NAZI, and can you understand why they aren't but why some would want to discredit them as such after what happened at Rainfurrest?

I think if was overshadowed by the diaper bombs thrown from the 5th floor.

I only appreciate nazies in fictionnal stories and a few games if the context makes it interresting.
The design of the outfit and the power domination idea can make fantastic material for stories honestly.

Real life nazies tho? Never met any who were going to do more than following a strange trend.

don't defend them

if you read what I've wrote and think you'll understand that i'm not defending anything.

i misinterpreted it, i reread it after posting my comment, and learned what happened. great stuff on your account, btw!

No harm done, and thanks man, much appreciated!

np. love the cock details too much!

Confused... but while I am curious, I’d rather avoid the drama

Hard to believe this is where we're at now. Never in my wildest dreams growing up would I have thought there would come a day when we were told to "let Nazis be Nazis," or to let Klansmen publicly speak their minds.

That said, nothin' like a game of Nazi chuckin' to liven up a protest. Go for distance!

Really? because I've been living the nightmare of communism being treated as a perfectly legitimate ideology that should be taught in universities,but not with a warning that this is bad in the way nazism and fascism is.

Huh. My school taught that Nazis were communists, and therefore communism is bad. If someone today wants to wear a swastika, but isn't a communist, they should probably find a new symbol. That's part of the confusion, I think. I see a swastika and just assume the person wearing it favors communism by default, along with all the rest of the stigma that goes with that symbol. You know, the whole genocide thing.

I...what?

Nazis were not Communists.

The Party had left wing elements, but Hitler largely purged those in the Night of the Long Knives. The Nazi regime, while maintaining state control over industries, did also work with, reward and maintain large scale private industry and production.

Both Nazism and Stalinism ended up being authoritarian shit holes, yes. But the two political theories aren't the same.

Unless that was meant to be sarcasm or satire? It's hard to tell online.

Eh, guess my school had some weird textbooks or something. But yeah, Nazis and communism were pretty much lumped together as synonymous, with Stalinism just being a different approach to the same political ideologies. But I'll admit, I did sort of fog up the details after the whole, you know, genocide part. Hard to care about someone's philosophies after you spend a whole week watching actual footage of gas chambers.

...On a side note, I think my history teacher may have been a little twisted.

Yeah, your teacher was very wrong there.

Don't get me wrong, both were authoritarian regimes that have high death tolls. But that's about it.

Stalinism came as an offshoot of Leninism: The attempt to move towards Communism after the Russian revolution, guided the the Communist Party Under Lenin. The idea was that rural russia would be forced through stages of development, through Industrialisation via State Capitalism [Capital controlled by the state], before moving onto Socialism [Capital controlled by the workers in worker democracies], then Communism [State fades away, result is worker led communes].

Under Stalin the pre-existing authoritarian undertones and secret police were intensified because Stalin was paranoid as fuck. The USSR was turned from a peasant backwater into an industrial nation, but at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and the purging of Stalin's enemies and perceived political opponents.


Hitlerism, that is to say Nazism was inspired in part by Italian Fascism, but also developed in its own mode and manner. The German Workers' Party was founded in 1919 as a mix of nationalist thought and social welfare for the people, as opposed to socialist economic reform. Hitler joined the party that year and soon took it over. In 1920, the party changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party, in order to try and win over left wing voters from Socialists and Communists, the latter of whom they were fighting in the Streets.

In 1921, the leadership of the Party attempted to merge with the German Socialist Party. Hitler blocked this move, and coup'd the party chairman, taking control the party entirely and moving the party on a nationalistic, revisionist course, blaming all of Germany's problems on 'Jews, Socialists and Traitors'. In 1923 he attempted an armed revolt against the Government, only to be defeated and arrested. He wrote his manifesto in prison and was released, soon once more entering politics. In 1933, the Nazi party took the largest amount of votes in the election and Hitler was appointed Chancellor. The Communist Party was banned, with its members being sent to the first Concentration Camps.

In 1934, Hitler had the SA and the left wing leaning members of his party purged in the Night of the Long Knives.

The Nazi party lead several anti-communist measures and alliances on the world stage, culminating with the invasion of the USSR in 1941. While it is true that Stalin and Hitler had partitioned Poland between them in 1939, that treaty had been more pragmatism rather than any ideological similarity.

The struggle between German and the USSR, between Nazism and Stalinism was the deadliest part of WW2. Over 18 million Soviet citizens died at the most conservative element.


TLDR:

Both were authoritarian, but that was it. Communism didn't run gas chambers. They had work camps [gulags] but not extermination camps.

Welp. I feel ignorant now. Though a little less so than before, so sometimes I suppose it pays to say something bass ackwards online. Can learn things every once in a while.

I can't really blame my history teachers on this one. A couple were bloodthirsty and sadistic--hey, wanna see how scalping works?--but I'm pretty sure they covered all those details accurately enough. My mind just retreats when the atrocities are displayed. I spent pretty much every history course from kindergarten through high school metaphorically curled up in the back of my head chanting, "Make it stop, make it stop..."

But! I can still assure Logic101 that communism was fully condemned in my school. Enough so that I wound up confusing it for Nazism entirely, evidently.

I like this for so many reasons. General cuteness aside, I've always been uncomfortable when people joke around about eating the nazis. Like...that's not what vore is for. Don't weaponize my fetish. For lack of a better words, doing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Hoss's reaction is much better. Nazis don't deserve vore.

What a nice way to get rid of those naz'i ! + the last panel is cute and funny nice artwork pal

Freedom of speech =/= Freedom from consequence

I wish more people understood this. Yes you are free to spout you hateful bullshit, but don't be surprise when people fucking check you!

yay, I stan these two even more now :)

yes! i don't understand why the right always does the dumbest shit just to "pwn the libterdssssss", instead of getting along and trying to make a difference in our world. but NOPE, bootlicking trump it is!

TBH

I want to live in a world where I could just curbstomp extremists and it's okay.

But I don't want to live in a world that glorifies violence against people labelled as "extremist". The Zygon Inversion has quite a bit to say about that - and I've been in the middle of things most armchair activists glorify and it's not fun or positive. At the end of the day, the question is once you've gotten rid of the current extremists, what do you do with the new extremists - the ones who are now at the poles because you cut the old ends of the poles off. And at the end of the day - how can you say to someone "you cannot target certain groups with violence" while you're specifically targeting their group with violence? Hypocrisy.

It's not that we shouldn't fight it. We should. And we should defend ourselves. But there's a fundamental issue with this "punching people who only talk" thing. Escalation of force is both what they want (so you make their Christmas come early)... and exactly the wrong way about it. Doing that for any group fronting like Spencer does makes them a martyr for the cause. It does them a favor.

Instead, discredit them. Show people how racist and backwards they are. Do everything you can to sabotage their reputation with nothing more or less than the truth.

Don't lie. Don't glorify violence. And buy a good baseball bat or other self-defense - just in case one of them kicks in your door because they can't see any other way to beat you than violently.

Let them be the bad guys - because they are.

---

I miss when the easiest way to get love online was to post porn. Can we please just go back to that kind of simplicity?

Ayyy, whiplash the fash baby B]

It took bravery to post this. I'm glad you did. I wish you well, and thank you for everything you do.
-an otherwise quiet fan.

Friendly reminder that Communism has killed and brainwashed more people than Nazism ever did.

Just sayin'~!

Correct, though that's arguably because Stalinism and Leninism had 69 years to run their authoritarian ideas as opposed to the 12 years that Nazis had to run their genocidal authoritarian ideas.

That said, I don't think the OP was being a tankie, or arguing that the USSR or such was 'good'. It seems to be more a liberal reaction against neo-nazis and the alt-right in general [given that the character is wearing the armband and all], though I'm assuming, given the whole 'nazi fur' thing that there was some event or drama that triggered it, or that someone they know has been affected by it.

69 years

nice

lmao

google "paradox of tolerance" u dummies

The first half: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

Or the second half:"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument"

and thanks to the internet we can't just debate these kinds of ideologies away :)

Who practices deplatforming?

Honestly thank you for making this pic so we can see all the trash trying desperately to defend nazis in the comments <3

I don't get it, why would a Nazi be talking they usually pullout their gun and shoot ya in the head that what happened to my great uncle.

Many, and probably most of us in the U.S. want free speech.
You have no idea what you are talking about. This way of thinking is why I'm against immigration legal or illegal.

Demographically, women and people of color are far more against free speech then those of my gender and demographic. When you say people don't want Free speech, you mean those groups.
Most of us are of the idea that the whole idea of free speech protecting speech you hate.
Saying their ideas is the only way to know why they are wrong.

TL;DR: I want attention by saying that things popularly considered bad are bad

Only bold statements here guys.

Also don’t come to me saying you want ‘Free’ speech, you don’t, you want taboos and exclude opinions that you consider bad.

And that’s fine if that’s what your culture demands, but don’t pretend to be “free”, open to all and without borders. Free speech is an ideal that very few actually want but you Americans always do that; “I want to be free” , “I want freedom” but regardless of what you’ll say, you’ll always want to put borders and limits in place, push your home grown agenda and I don’t have a problem with that practice but the rhetoric is what makes discourse in the US so retarded, you need to re-evaluate your national character.

You are no longer a nation needing to free yourself from anything like you did in 1777. You are a modern nation state and a lot of cultural background and build-up. Your limitations in terms of acceptance grew over time, as they do with every culture and nation.

Freedom, as defined by Americans is a weapon, against gun laws, against people and governments in the Middle East, against this, against that is used by both sides in the way that it is because it sounds better than “Our culture” or “Our societal values” ,but it’s a farce.

Admit you don’t want free, unregulated speech, I’m not going to fault you for it, I don’t either but I don’t delude myself. Saying you do but then drawing a picture of someone using force to push aside someone else’s opinion is stupid, fair and square.

(Sorry if this is going to ruffle some feathers but I think it is necessary, at least I think it’s necessary when you bring what you think is high minded political stuff onto a website most, me included, use for porn. Also Nazi Furries are stupid, Vollidioten allesamt sind die, ich wette die interessieren sich nicht einmal für das deutsche Volk.)

You realise that Freedom of Speech means that you have freedom to speak without being censored by the Government, yes?

Not Freedom from consequence, or Freedom from censorship via private individuals or companies.

American Freedom of Speech merely refers to people not being arrested for saying such things. The situation shown in the topic doesn't really contrast with that, seeing as its showing someone suffering Social consequence via personal and private actors, not via the state.

It's weird how people confuse the two.

So, because it literally protects us from government it gives others the right to stifle and censor?
I understand not platforming someone, but the way you think is absolutely disgusting.
This whole thread is. A bunch of fake virtuous morons

While I love Vore, I'm happy too he didn't eat this pile of crap ^^

Just wondering-is there art of a naked Boss Hoss?

Oh.. honey.. sweetie.. no. Just... no.

Tell me more! Please! Share with me how I should be properly handling this situation. Here. I got my and I'll put on my favorite

Tell me ALLLLLLL about your views.

Look! I even have my on!

Nazis get deleted

"Professionals, have standards."

Anyone that disagrees that nazi's are garbage are nazi garbage.


Edit: All those hidden posts, I am very curious how bad they are.

and I just found this comic ... couldn't agree harder.