TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

incoherentmumblings Archive

View 0 posts and 84 comments by incoherentmumblings on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
4

the L in LGBTQ stands for lesbian, so you can guess which kind of homosexual is referenced with the G
/r/MensRights05/02/26 01:09 AM
0

Except it wasn't conditioning, because i got the same western capitalist bullshit propaganda and needed years of critical thinking and fact collecting to break through it. That's the opposite of conditioning. And again: If nothing was ever produced, there would be nothing to exchange. I'll ignore the rest of your 'argument', because it makes no sense and i am not going to fall victim to brandolinis law.
/r/MensRights21/12/20 04:44 PM
1

No it can not be accomplished by one person. That person needs tools, they need an education, they need to be raised from a child, they need infrastructure to get all that. I call it it conditioning because it is. Education would encompass the means to critique the idea.
/r/MensRights21/12/20 04:39 PM
1

Just went straight to the libertarian BS core. It was obvious when he used "positive" and "negative" rights, which is something only the libertarian sect insists exists.
/r/MensRights21/12/20 04:37 PM
-1

It is the production of goods that creates value, otherwise there wouldn't be anything to exchange. And there was mass starvation on a semi yearly basis in pre-communist tsarist Russia, too. After the commies got their heads around how to organize production in a non-exploitative way it took them two generations to turn a backwater feudal shithole of a country where barely anyone could read or write into an industrial powerhouse that put the first man into space. And they defeated a murderous fa…
/r/MensRights21/12/20 04:02 AM
-5

found the libertarian brainwash victim. Pro Tip: Nobody creates wealth on their own. NOBODY. We all need a society to enable us to produce wealth, and there is nothing valuable that has only one creator. It is always a hugely complicated social act to produce anything of value. Therefore, the allocation of the produced wealth should also be a social act, not a private one. Have a nice day.
/r/MensRights21/12/20 03:23 AM
1

Yes, that is what i said. But it would help even more if you gave it to a political lobbying group pressuring politicians to respect he human rights of their citizens, including the right to adequate housing. Article 25 of the Declaration of Human Rights.
/r/MensRights21/12/20 02:39 AM
-3

Oh, but it absolutely is. You may want to check out Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory. There are even more goodies in there. "the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." That means universal healthcare, social security and other niceties (that are the norm in developed countries, btw) I am afraid what needs correction is your und…
/r/MensRights21/12/20 02:34 AM
2

Unless you are actively working towards a political change that gets everyone off the streets, that's a cheap cop-out. If, on the other hand, you donate the money you would have given to them to organizations and parties that work to end homelessness on the political level, you're goddamn right and the real deal.
/r/MensRights20/12/20 10:10 PM
0

Then it's stated purview needs to be corrected. Adequate housing is a human right, and it is the duty of every government do guarantee the human rights of it's citizens, otherwise it loses legitimacy.
/r/MensRights20/12/20 10:07 PM
4

Fun fact: adequate housing is a human right. Looks like the US is violating the human rights of it's citizens.
/r/MensRights20/12/20 10:05 PM
5

she is trying to redefine the word.
/r/MensRights13/12/20 02:39 PM
1

I care about some men's issues Which issues? And how are they not an appeal to social justice? You're not really making sense, i'll leave it at that until you admit that social justice is a good thing and that you want it, too.
/r/MensRights10/12/20 11:24 PM
0

There's a cultural nuance to the term SJW, not just a literal description. And there's your problem. If you are for fighting for social justice, you are a social justice warrior. You can't just use the term for people you don't like when you're doing the exact same thing. Social justice is a good thing, and anyone using the term in a derogatory way should ask themselves why they would prefer social injustice. Maybe it's just a bad term that shouldn't be used by anyone? Or maybe it just needs a p…
/r/MensRights10/12/20 10:59 PM
4

Yet, many Christians use "Lucifer" as synonymous with "Satan". And it's not from Paradise lost, it was used that way by Dante Alighieri a couple of hundred years before Miltons "Paradise Lost". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer#As_Satan_or_the_devil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_in_Christianity#Isaiah's_Lucifer_(Isaiah_14))
/r/MensRights10/12/20 10:52 PM
1

It's very telling that i get downvoted for a simple fact :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
/r/MensRights10/12/20 09:40 PM
2

What?I am talking about the literal latin-english translation of "lucifer"=light-bringer. He made Eve give the Apple from the tree of knowledge to Adam, and they both ate it and thereby acquired the capability of critical thinking. It's all straight from the bible, no English poems involved.
/r/MensRights10/12/20 09:35 PM
4

Not all FGM are "botched". The large percentage of FGM are nick into or full or partial removal of the clitoral hood. Even the removal of the full clitoral glans is less invasive than MGM (aka 'circumcision'), because the largest part of the clitoris and the most nerve endings are on the inside of the body, whereas the foreskin contains 60% of the sensitive nerve ends on the penis. https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research/key-areas-of-work/female-genital-mutilation/t…
/r/MensRights10/12/20 09:11 PM
0

You are on a Mens Rights subreddit. By definition, the struggle for Mens Rights is one for Social Justice. Everyone here is a SJW.
/r/MensRights10/12/20 08:55 PM
5

And yet another fun fact: "Lucifer" means Lightbringer, because he gave humans the gift of critical thinking. Makes you wonder who the good guys really are, doesn't it?
/r/MensRights10/12/20 08:52 PM
1

I very much concur. I guess it's the old story of becoming like the very thing you set out to fight. My personal take is that feminism is full of misandrists, while the MRA is full of misogynists, and both love to use their movements noble stated goals to veil their sexist hatred. Egalitarianism is the way forward. Identify injustices and call them out, against people of any gender, ethnical background, socioeconomical class, sexual orientation. Because in the end, the reasons and enabling facto…
/r/MensRights04/12/20 05:09 AM
1

to be fair, it can be argued that there was a time where the disparity in rights and opportunities was so large that an all-woman-centered movement was justified and part of the push towards a more egalitarian society. I do not wish to invalidate all of feminism. In fact, as an egalitarian i will always extend my solidarity to the parts of feminism that are still actually egalitarian, and such parts do exist and they are natural allies. I just fear that by now, they are the smaller part of the f…
/r/MensRights04/12/20 03:14 AM
2

The solution here is simple: Those dictionary defintiions are BS. feminism is, both by semantic origin as well as historic development, the struggle for women"s rights. If women"s rights were actually understood to be equal human rights for everyone, you could just call it egalitarianism. If it was just about equality of the genders, again that would be better described as gender egalitarianism. Feminism is the movement that aims to advance women's position in society, and since that implies tha…
/r/MensRights03/12/20 11:09 PM
2

"Have sex" is apparently what we call it when it's a boy that is raped. And we put some flattering pics of the rapist next to the headline.
/r/MensRights02/12/20 08:04 AM
0

But it's so cute to see triggered USians squirm to deny objective reality for their patriotism :) “The cheapest sort of pride is national pride; for if a man is proud of his own nation, it argues that he has no qualities of his own of which he can be proud; otherwise he would not have recourse to those which he shares with so many millions of his fellowmen. The man who is endowed with important personal qualities will be only too ready to see clearly in what respects his own nation falls short, …
/r/MensRights29/11/20 07:01 PM
0

So you've learned that whether its one or two continents is entirely a question of convention. What's not a question of convention is that a part can never be larger than the whole. North America can not be larger than America. And the USA is only a part of that Northern part, so it can not be America. It's not that hard to understand when you're not having a seizure from patriotic cognitive dissonance :)
/r/MensRights29/11/20 06:52 PM
1

America is a continent. Click that link already and learn something. And hey, unlike you i do not identify with my country. But at least it has a name. :)
/r/MensRights29/11/20 06:36 PM
1

Just because they teach you wrong in school doesn't mean it#s so. :) https://www.worldometers.info/geography/continents/ You can#t change the fact that a part of something (The US being part of North America) can never be larger than that same thing, (America is logically larger than North America, since it encompasses both North AND South America.) It's not my fault that your country has no name. Get one already. My suggestion would be "Oilistan". Or maybe "Democristan"? How about "Greatistan"?…
/r/MensRights29/11/20 04:10 PM
2

"The Americas" is the same as "America", it simply refers to the fact that there are two large distinct parts of America, the northern and the southern part. It's still one continent, or depending on definition (because continents really are just a definition thing) they are two continents. Canada is still on the American (or North American) continent. America is, either way, a continent, not a country. A part (North or South) of something can not logically be bigger than the whole (America). Bo…
/r/MensRights29/11/20 09:56 AM
3

There is a North, Central and South America, and together they form the continent of America.
/r/MensRights29/11/20 09:30 AM
3

You are the wrong one. "American" means "from America". Just like "European" means "from Europe". America is a continent, not a country. Hthh.
/r/MensRights29/11/20 09:11 AM
5

Now this might seem like nitpicking, but Canadians are Americans, too. Just like Mexicans and Brazilians. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
/r/MensRights29/11/20 01:46 AM
-2

According to your reasoning, as long as there is one woman available willing to have sex with all men, even if all men think her totally repulsive, there are no involuntary single men. Correct. That is the meaning of "involuntary". That's not my reasoning, that's simply the meaning of the word "involuntary": You are *forced* to and there is no other option. Someone doing or being something without being in control. And that right there is a dishonesty and an deflection of responsibility: It isn'…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/20 12:59 PM
-2

You demand of women that they change to wanting you. Semantics aside, that is precisely what i wrote and it is correct. You aren't "wanting and longing for", you put the blame on women. Which amounts to a demand to change, amounts to demanding they change to want to have sex with you although they (currently) do not. The obvious solution, btw, would be to look at yourself and how you can change the situation. But every time i proposed that, you felt attacked and immediately deflected back on wom…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/20 11:11 AM
27

Yes, that is misandry. It's sexist af.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/20 10:52 AM
-2

Dude, it is not stereotyping when you analyze a self-given label they freely identify with. Just like it wouldn't be stereotyping to say that left-wingers are egalitarian, or that Snow men are white. It's right in the god damn name. That's not a derailing, that's absolutely on point. But i see what you are doing here, and since you are a mod i have to assume that this is the policy here, and i do not need you to show me the door. I do not need another incel echo chamber, i want a place where men…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/20 10:30 AM
-1

That is a direct logical conclusion from your problem description. You do want sex, right? And you say there are no women that want to have sex with you. And then you go on to claim that would be the problem, and it would be because something is wrong with them. So they should want to have sex with you, but they don't, and that makes them wrong. So you are demanding sex from people that just don't want to have sex with you. I actually fail to see how you can not understand that simple exercise i…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/20 09:54 AM
-2

Not quite. Look at the map: Of all the countries in the "West", it's illegal in the US and Canada. I am sorry, but that isn't "most places". No, there is no must here. The dynamics are very different. For one, many women are more likely to accept being one of many (polygyny) if the guy is especially desirable (hypergamy). Come again? Your argument is that women are regularly (and often enough to make a statistic difference) in polygamous relationships where they are monogamous but the guy has mo…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/20 09:37 AM
0

expound please. Which line is being skirted?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/20 09:19 AM
-4

Say what? Prostitution is legal in most places in the west.And most places have an equal number of men and women, so for every relationship-less hetero man there is a relationship-less hetero woman.So if there is a problem with men not getting a relationship, there MUST be an equally large problem on the other side of the gender spectrum. Yet i don't see many incel women complaining. What's your explanation for that? And while i am at it: It is NOT stereotyping if one draws logically correct con…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/20 08:57 AM
1

How about you address the argument? For any relationshipless man, there needs to be a relationshipless woman. (Discounting the possibility for homosexuality and polygamy here for simplicity.)
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/20 12:18 AM
-3

How do you think it is problematic? And i disagree profoundly. It wasn't me who put that label on the problem. If we can't even identify the problem correctly, there is no way of solving it. The problem is NOT involuntary celibacy (which, again, is actually a paradox, celibacy is always and by definition voluntary.) When we have identified the actual problem, we can start figuring out how it can be solved. I am working towards that goal.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/20 12:14 AM
-2

the problem is there's no girls who are willing to receive that from them. That argument could fly in China or India, it does not fly in the rest of the world, where there's as many women as men in any given age bracket.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/20 12:10 AM
-4

Bullshit you're not stereotyping lmao. Who's "they" who pouts and complains like spoiled children, again? Not a stereotype? People that demand sex from people they are attracted to that don't want to have sex with them, as if it was their god given right. People that claim they would be involuntary celibate while living in a more or less sexually liberated country that has as many women as men. Nope, that's not stereotyping, that is dissecting their very self description. The "actual, real probl…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/11/20 11:46 PM
-7

Well, What do you or they believe is the actual, real problem then? If it's not getting no sex or relationships from people they would like to have sex or a relationship with? I am not stereotyping anyone, i am dissecting their core statements.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/11/20 11:05 PM
-16

*sigh* here we go again: If celibacy is your problem, lower your standards or pay for it. Celibacy is (by definition, btw) voluntary.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/11/20 07:17 PM
1

Again: If sex was the issue, they could pay for it or adjust their expectations to where they meet the demand. Everyone wants to fuck and be loved by Scarlett Johanson, but there's only one Scarlett Johanson and too many everyones. If these men can not adjust their expectations to what they can realistically achieve and rather prefer to not have sex instead, that doesn't make them involuntary sexless, it makes them entitled little bitches that demand sex with people that don't want to have sex w…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/11/20 09:43 AM
4

Sweden is the rape capital of Europe purely because they have a very broad definition of what constitutes rape.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/11/20 02:43 AM
1

But they *can* get sexual contacts for 20 bucks in almost every country. And they *could* just lower their standards until they find that one hideous granny that really urgently needs a lay if necessary. And as you rightly pointed out, if we go by the actual meaning of celibacy, they would have to have amputated hands to actually be involuntarily celibate. But they don't want to pay for it or they don't want to adjust their perceived market value to a point it actually meets demands. So the prob…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 08:34 PM
-2

I would just like to move any discussion along with a bit of structure. Do we agree that involuntary celibate is not an honest description of these people or not? It's obviously not the Sex they can't get, after all. It's something different that we can explore what it is after we agreed, but sex itself is not what they are involuntarily deprived of.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 05:20 PM
-3

Yes, most men desire a woman who desires them, be it for a night or a lifetime, and then prostitutes are no good. So for starters we agree that it's not involuntary SEXlessness, correct?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 05:08 PM
3

It's even stupider: Ending violence on women (only) doesn't even mention DV. Taking that literally would mean that women could do to everyone else whatever they chose without any fear of repercussion.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 01:04 PM
-1

I believe it's worth noting that incel isn't an honest term at all. In a society that provides access to relatively cheap commercial sexual services, it is quite hard to believe that these men are all involuntary sexless. They're not all dirt poor, after all. So their sexlessness is actually voluntary, almost every guy could afford a cheap prostitute once a month. What the actual problem is, is much harder than shelling out ~50$ for a hooker on the low end of the price scale. I believe there are…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/20 12:06 PM
-4

Egalitarianism is the very core of Leftism. If you are un-egalitarian, you can't be left. Regulations on businesses; Helping the Environment are not left at all. Socialized Medicine alone can not save the fact that if you're ideas are deeply unegalitarian, you aren't left.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/11/20 12:39 PM
14

There is nothing left about these feminists.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/11/20 01:16 AM
1

The Weimar Republic. Had very free speech, was a democracy (even a bit TOO democratic, as it lacked a lot of what is now considered mandatory for the term, such as minority protection and some motivation to form larger parties than the social democratic party of redhaired rabbit breeders) and it did turn directly into one of the most evil oppressive regimes the world has ever seen, precisely because no protection against hate speech made it easy for the populists to incite a collective paranoia.…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/11/20 01:57 AM
1

Dude. Just stop. It's getting even worse, if that was even possible.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/11/20 01:45 AM
1

The legal reasoning why it's not infringing on free speech still stands. It's simply irrelevant whether it's currently enforced or not. The reasoning is there, the law is there. you just chose to declare facts as invalid. Again.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 11:03 PM
1

It's irrelevant whether he had full support of his party. It's very relevant that the way for his party to gain followers was hate speech. It was legal then, it wouldn't be now. The hate speech laws were put in place to prevent the next Hitler. That's the opposite of what you claim. In *actual* reality, speech was as free in the Weimar republic as it is in the states now, The RESULT of that freedom was the rise of populists that used hate speech to gather political momentum. The night of the lon…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 10:48 PM
1

You're not: The legal reasoning why it's not infringing on free speech still stands.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 10:40 PM
1

Uhh, dude, stop. You are displaying your ignorance like it's a medal here. For what's it worth: Hitler was made chancellor by the center-right. He came to power in a society that had very free speech, not unlike the US today. He used that free speech to spout his hate speech and gathered followers by spreading lies about a Jewish conspiracy. Had there been enforced hate speech exemptions to freedom of speech, he could not have done what he did. You're shooting yourself in the foot here, and you …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 10:28 PM
1

Go and slaughter your sacred cow of unlimited freedom of speech already, then. Oh wait, that never existed. Nevermind.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 10:18 PM
2

Disclaimer: i wrote 'supposedly', because that quote can not be reliably attributed to him. As a great fan of Mark Twain i'd say it's not unlikely he said something like that, but it isn't a fact.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 10:02 PM
1

Ask yourself: When Adolf told the world that Shmuel was drinking the blood of babies, poisoning wells and conspired to erase the german culture, did Shmuel lose something? And when little Adolf tells the world that Shmuel simply invented the Holocaust and is lying about all his family being exterminated by the fascists, is Shmuel losing something? Like, safety, maybe? Or freedom? Are Jews as a minority group somehow less worthy of protection than individuals?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 09:59 PM
2

"It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." Mark Twain, supposedly. We have a prime example here. Absolutely convinced that he's seen the light while everyone else is just too stupid to understand his infallible reasoning skills and deductive powers. It's kinda sad, because you can tell that at one point, he must have been a truth-seeker, before he gave that up for the comfort of simply being right from now on, nevermind the facts.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 08:37 PM
1

No, the right to say untrue things is still absolute, provided the untruth does not deprive anyone of money or physical integrity. That is false. spreading lies about how your neighbor likes to fornicate with large dogs is not depriving them of money or "physical integrity". It is also very illegal. All that hate speech laws do is transfer that protection from a purely individual level to a group. And that makes all kinds of sense. Again: All of the western ("free")world has some kind of hate sp…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 08:26 PM
1

Everyone has a right to their own opinion. But not to their own facts. When you state falsehoods about a group of people, that's just as problematic as falsehoods about individuals. The latter is not covered by free speech in the US. Both are not covered in EU. And it makes perfect sense, and in fact it is highly problematic that the US let's populists do to minorities what would be illegal when done to an individual. The US is alone in the world with that extremist understanding of free speech.…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 08:11 PM
1

i already explained why your reasoning doesn't work. If you tell David that the Holocaust didn't happen, you are belittling his suffering, you are calling him a liar and a fraud. David does not even need to be addressed personally to be assaulted. And i hope i do not have to explain in this sub why it is a bad idea to let Nazis style themselves as victims of a conspiracy, because we all know what happened the last time we let them do that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 08:08 PM
0

That is simply false. The NAzis had all kinds of reasonings, including "because we can". Very rarely was there any mentioning of protection against hate speech. It's just a very distorted understanding of how the Nazis operated, and it's only convenient to those wishing to protect hate speech by abusing free speech.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 07:57 PM
2

Cos one is enough to demonstrate that your rule is false. And you can't write that the US Pres needs assassinating in the US media, clearly demonstrating that there are limits to free speech in the US that did not exist in a dictatorship.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 07:55 PM
1

They do exist, as well as the legal reasoning that they do not infringe on free speech. STop accusing others of lying when all they said are demonstrable facts. It only makes you look like you're completely detached from reality. Which, to be honest, you already look anyway, but no need to double down on it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 07:53 PM
2

No, it is not. hate speech is simply the group-based version of the individual cases you listed. And obviously there is a path there: Accept that not only individuals, but also minorities as groups need to be protected from that verbal assault you rightly condemn when it's targeting individuals. Again: free speech is not unlimited, anywhere. It is always balanced against other peoples rights, and sometimes those take precedence. Nothing different with Europe's hate speech laws. They protect mino…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 05:05 PM
1

The brits were dictatorial. These laws simply had nothing to do with being scourged by dictators. Musharraf seized power in a military coup and nothing suggests he couldn't have done that if the blasphemy laws hadn't been in place. Again: Dictatorships rely LESS on controlling what the public can and can't say than democracies do. Your proclaimed causality just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 04:56 PM
1

I replied to that elsewhere: Hate speech laws are just the collective equivalent of the individuals against "libel, fraud and other limited forms of assault". And then there's still blasphemy on US law books anyway.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 04:51 PM
1

Well, hate speech is the exact same, but against a group of people instead of a single individual (or corporation, lol). Holocaust denial is literally pissing on the graves of millions, and it's calling people liars and frauds that were actually there and survived the death camps. Some of these people are still alive, so making holocaust denial unlawful is nothing but protecting them against things that would be illegal in the US, too when stated on an individual level. The moral calculus on wha…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 04:48 PM
1

You will note that Musharraf inherited these laws and it was not him that made them harsher. Again: Dictatorships do not have to care what their people say. And then, looks like blasphemy is still a crime in parts of the USA. So much for the unlimited free speech theory that you seem to believe in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_States
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 04:37 PM
0

I agree on all of that, including the questionable existence. But it's a slightly different thing when you attack something that gives identity to a repressed group. I therefore would applaud the term child-raping murderer when used in islamic countries, but critique it when used by western countries.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 04:32 PM
4

You think you did. But you did the opposite. I repeat: Free speech isn't unlimited in the US either, and you're wrong about Hitlers reasoning to abolish free speech. Outlawing hate speech is not an infringement on free speech, end of story. Just like libel laws aren't either. Free speech is NOT without limits, nowhere.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 04:27 PM
3

If you are under 40 years old, you will live to see France, Spain or Germany fall to dictatorship again. Seems much more likely to happen in the US at this point, but then, you don't exactly strike me as a very enlightened thinker anyway, so i guess your prophesies aren't really relevant.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 04:01 PM
5

You are somehow missing the point that free speech isn't unlimited in the US, either. And you are very wrong about hitler imposing restrictions on free speech exclusively under the guise of hate speech laws. You don't really know much about the issue except what you heard from US right wing pundits, do you?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 03:59 PM
1

child-raping murderer Mohammed spotted the islamophobe. FYI: All US presidents since WWII with ONE exception were child murderers. Maria Magdalena was a child by todays standards too btw.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 03:54 PM
2

You're putting that in the form of a question, because you don't really know. Comeon, let me see your evidence of the Pakistani *state* giving a shit. You won't find it.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 03:50 PM
2

In Pakistan under Musharraf, speech was so free that newspapers could openly print demands for Musharrafs assassination. Free speech is absolutely possible in Dictatorships, since they rely more on violence anyway. while democracies rely more on propaganda to uphold their rule. As Chomsky put it: "Propaganda is to democracy what violence is to dictatorship." When you can just murder anyone who actually threatens your rule, you don't need to care that much about what they say.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 03:21 PM
4

Free speech is not unlimited (not even in the US). Europe is very correct when excluding hate speech from free speech, and they have paid a high price to learn it. I think the one who needs a tiny bit more education on the topic is you, with all due respect.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/11/20 03:15 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter