Hate Speech

Does This Article Contain Hate Speech?

May 07, 2018

They would have you believe that noticing Mexicans tend to be short and overweight will lead to machine-gun battles in the streets. Mind you, these are the same people who deny that bringing in Mexican cartels to America would ever lead to machine-gun battles in the streets.

They would have you believe that noticing high black crime rates only demeans and frustrates black people, leading to more crime caused solely by your hate and ignorance.

They would have you believe that wishing to preserve your family and culture and nation is an act of destruction rather than one of self-preservation.

But none of this is true. I stopped believing in innate human equality sometime around 1990, and as a result, the only people I’ve wanted to physically harm are those who keep lying to me about innate human equality and who want to ban the very act of questioning innate human equality.

So if they can’t plausibly push the “immediate threat of violence” narrative to justify banning hate speech, they’ll argue that it besmirches the innate dignity of poor and disenfranchised groups, and they’ll cite some study that shows having one’s innate dignity besmirched will sometimes lead to a loss of self-esteem and employment opportunities. Basically, they treat poor and disenfranchised groups as nonfunctional retards.

And based on nothing more than their out-of-control savior complexes and unacknowledged sadism, they have gone on a global campaign to destroy, ostracize, and jail anyone who is even perceived as attempting to hurt the feelings of one of their nonfunctionally retarded pet groups.

In Canada, you can be jailed for using the wrong gender pronouns to describe a tranny.

In Germany, you don’t even need to “deny” the Holocaust to face jail time—you can merely attempt to “justify” it or “approve” of it.

In Brazil, the sin of “racism” is an “Offense with no statute of limitations and no right to bail for the defendant.”

In Denmark, you merely need to insult any group publicly, with the possible exception of Danes, because that’s how this “hate speech” thing seems to work. Just like popular definitions of “racism” and “sexism,” the idea of “hate speech” is heavily weighted with double standards.

An English Liberal Democrat named Sarah Noble belonged to an LGBT group with a “zero-tolerance policy towards hate speech,” yet Noble’s online postings included thought-turds such as “white men are awful,” “we need to remove men from society,” and “I keep putting men in the bin and they keep crawling out.”

In the same spirit, Australian Labor Senator Penny Wong, a woman of Chinese extraction, sought to keep criminal penalties in the country’s Racial Discrimination Act for using language that would “offend,” “insult,” and “humiliate” certain ethnic grievance groups such as, I presume, unpleasant Chinese women. Yet she saw no irony in smearing her political opponents with the racially specific slur “rednecks.”

And in the most supreme of supreme ironies, Facebook has allowed one exception to its “hate speech” ban on advocating that people be sent to concentration camps: It’s OK to say on Facebook that Nazis should be sent to concentration camps.

We are in the throes of a moral panic engineered by children. Dangerous children. Children with their grubby little fingers on the levers of power.

I hate them.

SIGN UP
Daily updates with TM’s latest