Free Speech is White Supremacy

[_EAllusion]

The question is why is Ajax posting this?

When I questioned why BLM was not protesting over the gang violence and black on black crime in Chicago and entirely focused on white on black police homicides, I was told that people are permitted to choose which issues they wanted to fix.

So why am I not permitted that same right in choosing which infringements upon constitutional free speech I point out?

What infringement on Constitutional free speech are you pointing out?

You can discuss what you want. That you choose to almost exclusively focus on obscure examples of bad minorities (tm) via Brietbart articles is no coincidence and others are free to comment on it.

Another thing people a free to question is how sincere your free speech concerns are while you fan boy people advocating imprisoning disfavored journalists.

[_Hawkeye]

When I questioned why BLM was not protesting over the gang violence and black on black crime in Chicago and entirely focused on white on black police homicides, I was told that people are permitted to choose which issues they wanted to fix.

That's a stupid question that misses the point of BLM. Black on black crime has nothing to do with civil rights violations or institutional racism. This "question" is just your pathetic way of shoe-horning another white supremacist talking point into the discussion while pretending to be genuine is your dumb question. Because everyone who wears a white hood understands that racism cannot exist if black people kill black people too.

So why am I not permitted that same right in choosing which infringements upon constitutional free speech I point out?

Yeah, like anyone has ever said anything about you not having the right to do something. What you're doing is looking for any obscure straw man you can find to take focus off of the fact that you lose every damned argument you try to tackle. And now you do so by taking for granted anything and everything your discredited propaganda says. How do you expect anyone to comment, let alone defend, something some Canadian guy allegedly said without context?

[_schreech]

Christ subfaps, your reading comprehension is on par with your ability to articulate a thought, somewhere between a mentally challenged chimp and a banana, and not a ripe banana.

Its like you don't actually know the meaning of words that anyone, including yourself, uses. I didn't attack the messenger, I literally agreed with ajax that some people believe stupid things, including this professor in Toronto if what was quoted is actually something he said. I then went on to point out that if we really want to know what "white supremacist ideals" are, we should go to an actual white supremacist, like ajax and his fellow clansmen. I know that this sort of basic logic escapes you and you really aren't more than a dimwit who doesn't really have any skill beyond attempting (and I do mean attempting since you don't seem to understand anything you read) to contradict anything anyone here says - essentially a highly trained parrot. The first sentence was the mentally challenged chimp part of your post.

The rest of your post seems to be a unintelligible mishmash of unrelated "thoughts" (? not sure if anything you post could actually be considered a thought) that seem to just be rambling nonsense with a few words from the op thrown in. I think a unripe banana might actually be able to articulate its thoughts better than you did in the second half of your post.

Thanks for chiming in though, its always fun seeing seeing you embarrass yourself. You deserve the attention you desperately crave...

[_schreech]

What infringement on Constitutional free speech are you pointing out?

You can discuss what you want. That you choose to almost exclusively focus on obscure examples of bad minorities (tm) via Brietbart atricles is no coincidence and others are free to comment on it.

Another thing people a free to question is how sincere your free speech concerns are while you fan boy people advocating imprisoning disfavored journalists.

Ajax, please point out where anyone's right to "Constitutional free speech" was infringed upon. Im not seeing it and what does a Canadian professor have to do with the US Constitution? Your entire post is silly. We get it, you are a racist brietbart reader who goes to that site to strengthen your resentment of anything that run counter to your racist views. This one is weak, even by your insanely low standards.

[Guest]

That's a stupid question that misses the point of BLM. Black on black crime has nothing to do with civil rights violations or institutional racism. This "question" is just your pathetic way of shoe-horning another white supremacist talking point into the discussion while pretending to be genuine is your dumb question. Because everyone who wears a white hood understands that racism cannot exist if black people kill black people too.

Well duh :), brietbart doesn't actually try to explain to its readers the purpose of the BLM movement, it runs counter to their business model. Enraging the current american "right" (which really doesn't mean much these days). They know their readership is much more interested in finding reasons to dislike minorities and libruls!!!!11 so why try to explain what BLM leaders are actually trying to accomplish. They might actually cause some of their readers to think and reconsider their racist views which run counter to the success of their business.

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American [right]".

[_Xenophon]

That's a stupid question that misses the point of BLM. Black on black crime has nothing to do with civil rights violations or institutional racism. This "question" is just your pathetic way of shoe-horning another white supremacist talking point into the discussion while pretending to be genuine is your dumb question. Because everyone who wears a white hood understands that racism cannot exist if black people kill black people too.

It is probably also worth pointing out that the notion that minorities don't push back against crime, particularly in Chicago is completely and totally unfounded.

Here is a nice opinion piece expounding on the distinction you laid out. I don't expect ajax to read it but I imagine some may find it interesting.

[_Themis]

Themis are you Rinaldo Walcott in real life?

Have I said anything remotely close to what you think this person has?

[_huckelberry]

I have hunted for bit more of Mr Walcotts actual comments. I have only found relatively limited sample but listening to him discuss the topic of Universities and free speech I do not hear the sort of thought reported by Brietbart. (possible intentional failure to understand and report correctly?)

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the- ... -1.4427115

[Guest]

It is remarkable how every time we think that Bach, Majax and subgenius couldn't possibly post anything more irrational, misinformed or more bigoted than what they just posted, they invariably prove us wrong. They are very much like flat earthers in that respect. It is notable that the most devoutly religious one is, the more likely one is to exhibit this malady. Despite this, however, one cannot honestly deny that some of the greatest examples of compassion, art, architecture and music have been accomplished by deeply religious people.

[_Gunnar]

deleted duplicate post