Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Discussion Free speech and pro-rape viewpoints: Redditors prove yet again that they are constitutionally illiterate

Some Discordcel alerted me to the following CuckTears post from two weeks ago, where a few former .is members discussed rape and vigilantism on a separate forum.


First of all, let me say that JosefMengelecel is not someone I like. He was banned from .is several months ago, and rightly so. But the requirements of the First Amendment are crystal clear. The FBI cannot arrest him for writing this:

1a 4

Nevertheless, soycucks started screeching:

1641225463963

Oh, man. With every new post, their ignorance plumbs new depths.

Aa667eddd7e4f7d4b2f44fcedc5bf886

Dissecting JosefMengelecel's speech

It's certainly a bizarre monologue. But JosefMengelecel never directed any person to commit illegal activity. Nor did he say that he was going to commit illegal activity. Depending on the specificity and context of said speech, the former would possibly be "incitement", the latter would possibly be a "true threat"; but his speech falls in neither category.

Rather, JosefMengelecel abstractly suggests that "rape should be properly legalized", and that rape victims and their "cuck[ed]" relatives should be "publicly tortured" should rapists be harmed. Here, he is merely engaging in political speech, expressing his viewpoint on a public policy issue. His viewpoint is that governments should not criminalize rape, but should instead protect the physical safety of rapists, and cruelly punish those who harm rapists.

Applying the First Amendment to JosefMengelecel's speech

Gavelcrop2

JosefMengelecel's viewpoint is certainly unconventional. But the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevent the FBI from arresting him for expressing it. It is his fundamental right to express this viewpoint. This is not a legally contested issue; this has been clearly established for a few decades now.

Generally speaking, constitutional law classifies government actions regulating speech as either "content-neutral" regulations (i.e. the time, place, and manner of speech) or "content-based" regulations (i.e. what can and cannot be said). The latter is held to a higher degree of, or "strict", scrutiny. A subgroup of content-based regulation is viewpoint-based regulation, where the government discriminates against speakers based on the specific perspective of their speech.

Because, as the Supreme Court stated thusly, "Giving offense is a viewpoint," Matal v. Tam 137 S. Ct. 1744, 1763 (2017), the most important takeaway from case law addressing viewpoint-based regulation is that the First Amendment equally protects unpopular or even hateful speech as it protects socially desirable speech.

To say that the judiciary is extremely skeptical of viewpoint discrimination would be an understatement. Generally, the government is not allowed to "impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects," R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391 (1992). “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989) (Holding that the First Amendment protects the right to burn the U.S. flag.) "[W]e have indicated that in public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment." Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357, 373 (1997) (Quoting Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 322 (1988); internal quotations omitted).

Any reasonable person who understands First Amendment jurisprudence consequently recognizes that Josefmengelecel has every right to express his opinion that rape should be decriminalized; just as a Redditor has the same right to express its opinion that alleged rapists should be publicly executed without a trial. On a similar note, a meme that says "I support beating the shit out of pedophiles" is not entitled to greater constitutional protection compared to a hypothetical meme that says "I support beating the shit out of feminists." The unpopularity or offensiveness of the ideas being expressed is irrelevant.

"But what about social justice and m'lady?"

FEQStZnXMAU2 VI

The most prevalent (yet unsound) argument proffered by normies on the question of "misogyny" is that:

P1) "Hateful" speech is harmful to femoids; and
P2) The government has a compelling interest to prevent harm;
C) Therefore, the FBI should suppress "hateful" speech and arrest you silly inkwells!

But the U.S. Constitution's answer is clear: No. The government is generally not permitted to redistribute the social costs of "harmful" speech from a listener to a speaker by punishing the speaker.

The FBI isn't a cabal of moral philosophers tasked to strike a normatively desirable balance between a misguided understanding of "social justice" and incels' civil liberties; they're a law enforcement agency tasked to enforce the law as it is written. And though the law excepts certain "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech" Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571 (1942), from First Amendment protection, none of those categories applies to JosefMengelecel's political speech.

@Zensfy @-BrettyBoy- @Infinity @Fat Link @FrothySolutions @JoeBruhcel @trying to ascend @SlayerSlayer @Rhaast @ilieknothing @IncelHQ @Lycan @Steiner Ex Machina @Lv99_BixNood @Wellington @based_meme @Mecoja @Arthas93 @fast_curry @Misanthropy1 @ThoughtfulCel @MarquisDeSade @erenyeager
 
Last edited:
cvh1991

cvh1991

Captain
★★★★
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Posts
1,858
Online
7d 10h 12m
Some Discordcel alerted me to the following CuckTears post from two weeks ago, where a few former .is members discussed rape and vigilantism on a separate forum.


First of all, let me say that JosefMengelecel is not someone I like. He was banned from .is several months ago, and rightly so. But the requirements of the First Amendment are crystal clear. The FBI cannot arrest him for writing this:

View attachment 558019

Nevertheless, soycucks started screeching:

View attachment 558005

Oh, man. With every new post, their ignorance plumbs new depths.

View attachment 558023

Dissecting JosefMengelecel's speech

It's certainly a bizarre monologue. But JosefMengelecel never directed any person to commit illegal activity. Nor did he say that he was going to commit illegal activity. Depending on the specificity and context of said speech, the former would possibly be "incitement", the latter would possibly be a "true threat"; but his speech falls in neither category.

Rather, JosefMengelecel abstractly suggests that "rape should be properly legalized", and that rape victims and their "cuck[ed]" relatives should be "publicly tortured" should rapists be harmed. Here, he is merely engaging in political speech, expressing his viewpoint on a public policy issue. His viewpoint is that governments should not criminalize rape, but should instead protect the physical safety of rapists, and cruelly punish those who harm rapists.

Applying the First Amendment to JosefMengelecel's speech

View attachment 558078

JosefMengelecel's viewpoint is certainly unconventional. But the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevent the FBI from arresting him for expressing it. It is his fundamental right to express this viewpoint. This is not a legally contested issue; this has been clearly established for a few decades now.

Generally speaking, constitutional law classifies government actions regulating speech as either "content-neutral" regulations (i.e. the time, place, and manner of speech) or "content-based" regulations (i.e. what can and cannot be said). The latter is held to a higher degree of, or "strict", scrutiny. A subgroup of content-based regulation is viewpoint-based regulation, where the government discriminates against speakers based on the specific perspective of their speech.

Because, as the Supreme Court stated thusly, "Giving offense is a viewpoint," Matal v. Tam 137 S. Ct. 1744, 1763 (2017), the most important takeaway from case law addressing viewpoint-based regulation is that the First Amendment equally protects unpopular or even hateful speech as it protects socially desirable speech.

To say that the judiciary is extremely skeptical of viewpoint discrimination would be an understatement. Generally, the government is not allowed to "impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects," R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391 (1992). “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989) (Holding that the First Amendment protects the right to burn the U.S. flag.) "[W]e have indicated that in public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment." Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357, 373 (1997) (Quoting Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 322 (1988); internal quotations omitted).

Any reasonable person who understands First Amendment jurisprudence consequently recognizes that Josefmengelecel has every right to express his opinion that rape should be decriminalized; just as a Redditor has the same right to express its opinion that alleged rapists should be publicly executed without a trial. On a similar note, a meme that says "I support beating the shit out of pedophiles" is not entitled to greater constitutional protection compared to a hypothetical meme that says "I support beating the shit out of feminists." The unpopularity or offensiveness of the ideas being expressed is irrelevant.

"But what about social justice and m'lady?"

View attachment 558079

The most prevalent (yet unsound) argument proffered by normies on the question of "misogyny" is that:

P1) "Hateful" speech is harmful to femoids; and
P2) The government has a compelling interest to prevent harm;
C) Therefore, the FBI should suppress "hateful" speech and arrest you silly inkwells!

But the U.S. Constitution's answer is clear: No. The government is generally not permitted to redistribute the social costs of "harmful" speech from a listener to a speaker by punishing the speaker.

The FBI isn't a cabal of moral philosophers tasked to strike a normatively desirable balance between a misguided understanding of "social justice" and incels' civil liberties; they're a law enforcement agency tasked to enforce the law as it is written. And though the law excepts certain "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech" Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571 (1942), from First Amendment protection, none of those categories applies to JosefMengelecel's political speech.

@Zensfy @-BrettyBoy- @Infinity @Fat Link @FrothySolutions @JoeBruhcel @trying to ascend @SlayerSlayer @Rhaast @ilieknothing @IncelHQ @Lycan @Steiner Ex Machina @Lv99_BixNood @Wellington @based_meme @Mecoja @Arthas93 @fast_curry @Misanthropy1 @ThoughtfulCel @MarquisDeSade @erenyeager

Lol Redditors are all for doxxing until it’s them getting doxxed.
 
cvh1991

cvh1991

Captain
★★★★
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Posts
1,858
Online
7d 10h 12m
Redditors are left-wing authoritarians, who are notorious for not understanding, or perhaps more likely, are diametrically opposed to the First Amendment. They want to control speech, because they want to be in control. Nothing new here. :feelsjuice:
Nailed it perfectly and succinctly
 
cvh1991

cvh1991

Captain
★★★★
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Posts
1,858
Online
7d 10h 12m
The only good thing jewmerica has is the first amendment, but in a few years it'll probably be removed or very restricted like they did with the second amendment.
Sadly you’re probably right that they’ll trash it — and then woke retards who are awfully convenient for the establishment will cheer. The fools.

They only see reality when it’s too late and finally their freedoms are stripped away and not just the people they hate.
 
bigantennaemay1

bigantennaemay1

Aspie social drifter without purpose or home
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Posts
13,359
Online
72d 16h 5m
They only see reality when it’s too late and finally their freedoms are stripped away and not just the people they hate.
Far too many people possess this incredibly short-sighted and self-centered mentality.
 
Sneir

Sneir

INCELKOMMANDO INTERPOL AGENT GLASS PUSHER COPKILLA
-
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Posts
15,128
Online
63d 12h 4m
Some Discordcel alerted me to the following CuckTears post from two weeks ago, where a few former .is members discussed rape and vigilantism on a separate forum.


First of all, let me say that JosefMengelecel is not someone I like. He was banned from .is several months ago, and rightly so. But the requirements of the First Amendment are crystal clear. The FBI cannot arrest him for writing this:

View attachment 558019

Nevertheless, soycucks started screeching:

View attachment 558005

Oh, man. With every new post, their ignorance plumbs new depths.

View attachment 558023

Dissecting JosefMengelecel's speech

It's certainly a bizarre monologue. But JosefMengelecel never directed any person to commit illegal activity. Nor did he say that he was going to commit illegal activity. Depending on the specificity and context of said speech, the former would possibly be "incitement", the latter would possibly be a "true threat"; but his speech falls in neither category.

Rather, JosefMengelecel abstractly suggests that "rape should be properly legalized", and that rape victims and their "cuck[ed]" relatives should be "publicly tortured" should rapists be harmed. Here, he is merely engaging in political speech, expressing his viewpoint on a public policy issue. His viewpoint is that governments should not criminalize rape, but should instead protect the physical safety of rapists, and cruelly punish those who harm rapists.

Applying the First Amendment to JosefMengelecel's speech

View attachment 558078

JosefMengelecel's viewpoint is certainly unconventional. But the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevent the FBI from arresting him for expressing it. It is his fundamental right to express this viewpoint. This is not a legally contested issue; this has been clearly established for a few decades now.

Generally speaking, constitutional law classifies government actions regulating speech as either "content-neutral" regulations (i.e. the time, place, and manner of speech) or "content-based" regulations (i.e. what can and cannot be said). The latter is held to a higher degree of, or "strict", scrutiny. A subgroup of content-based regulation is viewpoint-based regulation, where the government discriminates against speakers based on the specific perspective of their speech.

Because, as the Supreme Court stated thusly, "Giving offense is a viewpoint," Matal v. Tam 137 S. Ct. 1744, 1763 (2017), the most important takeaway from case law addressing viewpoint-based regulation is that the First Amendment equally protects unpopular or even hateful speech as it protects socially desirable speech.

To say that the judiciary is extremely skeptical of viewpoint discrimination would be an understatement. Generally, the government is not allowed to "impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects," R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391 (1992). “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989) (Holding that the First Amendment protects the right to burn the U.S. flag.) "[W]e have indicated that in public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment." Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357, 373 (1997) (Quoting Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 322 (1988); internal quotations omitted).

Any reasonable person who understands First Amendment jurisprudence consequently recognizes that Josefmengelecel has every right to express his opinion that rape should be decriminalized; just as a Redditor has the same right to express its opinion that alleged rapists should be publicly executed without a trial. On a similar note, a meme that says "I support beating the shit out of pedophiles" is not entitled to greater constitutional protection compared to a hypothetical meme that says "I support beating the shit out of feminists." The unpopularity or offensiveness of the ideas being expressed is irrelevant.

"But what about social justice and m'lady?"

View attachment 558079

The most prevalent (yet unsound) argument proffered by normies on the question of "misogyny" is that:

P1) "Hateful" speech is harmful to femoids; and
P2) The government has a compelling interest to prevent harm;
C) Therefore, the FBI should suppress "hateful" speech and arrest you silly inkwells!

But the U.S. Constitution's answer is clear: No. The government is generally not permitted to redistribute the social costs of "harmful" speech from a listener to a speaker by punishing the speaker.

The FBI isn't a cabal of moral philosophers tasked to strike a normatively desirable balance between a misguided understanding of "social justice" and incels' civil liberties; they're a law enforcement agency tasked to enforce the law as it is written. And though the law excepts certain "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech" Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571 (1942), from First Amendment protection, none of those categories applies to JosefMengelecel's political speech.

@Zensfy @-BrettyBoy- @Infinity @Fat Link @FrothySolutions @JoeBruhcel @trying to ascend @SlayerSlayer @Rhaast @ilieknothing @IncelHQ @Lycan @Steiner Ex Machina @Lv99_BixNood @Wellington @based_meme @Mecoja @Arthas93 @fast_curry @Misanthropy1 @ThoughtfulCel @MarquisDeSade @erenyeager

Rape Is not a crime till it happens only in video game (in video game)
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Director of Counter-Counter-Radicalization
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
28,726
Online
273d 8h 33m
Rape Is not a crime till it happens only in video game (in video game)
You really are an incredibly entertaining user :feelskek:
 
JayGoptri

JayGoptri

Mythic
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Posts
4,557
Online
71d 5h 45m
Some Discordcel alerted me to the following CuckTears post from two weeks ago, where a few former .is members discussed rape and vigilantism on a separate forum.


First of all, let me say that JosefMengelecel is not someone I like. He was banned from .is several months ago, and rightly so. But the requirements of the First Amendment are crystal clear. The FBI cannot arrest him for writing this:

View attachment 558019

Nevertheless, soycucks started screeching:

View attachment 558005

Oh, man. With every new post, their ignorance plumbs new depths.

View attachment 558023

Dissecting JosefMengelecel's speech

It's certainly a bizarre monologue. But JosefMengelecel never directed any person to commit illegal activity. Nor did he say that he was going to commit illegal activity. Depending on the specificity and context of said speech, the former would possibly be "incitement", the latter would possibly be a "true threat"; but his speech falls in neither category.

Rather, JosefMengelecel abstractly suggests that "rape should be properly legalized", and that rape victims and their "cuck[ed]" relatives should be "publicly tortured" should rapists be harmed. Here, he is merely engaging in political speech, expressing his viewpoint on a public policy issue. His viewpoint is that governments should not criminalize rape, but should instead protect the physical safety of rapists, and cruelly punish those who harm rapists.

Applying the First Amendment to JosefMengelecel's speech

View attachment 558078

JosefMengelecel's viewpoint is certainly unconventional. But the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevent the FBI from arresting him for expressing it. It is his fundamental right to express this viewpoint. This is not a legally contested issue; this has been clearly established for a few decades now.

Generally speaking, constitutional law classifies government actions regulating speech as either "content-neutral" regulations (i.e. the time, place, and manner of speech) or "content-based" regulations (i.e. what can and cannot be said). The latter is held to a higher degree of, or "strict", scrutiny. A subgroup of content-based regulation is viewpoint-based regulation, where the government discriminates against speakers based on the specific perspective of their speech.

Because, as the Supreme Court stated thusly, "Giving offense is a viewpoint," Matal v. Tam 137 S. Ct. 1744, 1763 (2017), the most important takeaway from case law addressing viewpoint-based regulation is that the First Amendment equally protects unpopular or even hateful speech as it protects socially desirable speech.

To say that the judiciary is extremely skeptical of viewpoint discrimination would be an understatement. Generally, the government is not allowed to "impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects," R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391 (1992). “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989) (Holding that the First Amendment protects the right to burn the U.S. flag.) "[W]e have indicated that in public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment." Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357, 373 (1997) (Quoting Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 322 (1988); internal quotations omitted).

Any reasonable person who understands First Amendment jurisprudence consequently recognizes that Josefmengelecel has every right to express his opinion that rape should be decriminalized; just as a Redditor has the same right to express its opinion that alleged rapists should be publicly executed without a trial. On a similar note, a meme that says "I support beating the shit out of pedophiles" is not entitled to greater constitutional protection compared to a hypothetical meme that says "I support beating the shit out of feminists." The unpopularity or offensiveness of the ideas being expressed is irrelevant.

"But what about social justice and m'lady?"

View attachment 558079

The most prevalent (yet unsound) argument proffered by normies on the question of "misogyny" is that:

P1) "Hateful" speech is harmful to femoids; and
P2) The government has a compelling interest to prevent harm;
C) Therefore, the FBI should suppress "hateful" speech and arrest you silly inkwells!

But the U.S. Constitution's answer is clear: No. The government is generally not permitted to redistribute the social costs of "harmful" speech from a listener to a speaker by punishing the speaker.

The FBI isn't a cabal of moral philosophers tasked to strike a normatively desirable balance between a misguided understanding of "social justice" and incels' civil liberties; they're a law enforcement agency tasked to enforce the law as it is written. And though the law excepts certain "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech" Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571 (1942), from First Amendment protection, none of those categories applies to JosefMengelecel's political speech.

@Zensfy @-BrettyBoy- @Infinity @Fat Link @FrothySolutions @JoeBruhcel @trying to ascend @SlayerSlayer @Rhaast @ilieknothing @IncelHQ @Lycan @Steiner Ex Machina @Lv99_BixNood @Wellington @based_meme @Mecoja @Arthas93 @fast_curry @Misanthropy1 @ThoughtfulCel @MarquisDeSade @erenyeager


There is nothing "illegal" in his post from what I can see. Of course, depending on the State (and assuming the FBI/State Police can identify him), the political climate in liberal states will always favor an attempt ar prosecution. One thing we can see from watching trails of late (and ever since the elections) is that IF the almost religious cuckoldry of the SJW is strong enough, sometimes illegal actions can be taken against the person in question. (In this case JosefMengelCel) Only a handful of defense lawyers would likely be able to argue his type of case. Perhaps, if someone charged like this got a change of venue to an area of the U.S. where local magistrates and general district courts(or circut courts if it's the FBI prosecuting) are still trying to apply the law properly and fairly.

Regardless, this thing you raise will most probably never become a thing, because of course they likely don't know who he is. Until that changes, it's a moot point I feel. The problem we are facing is its becoming more and more unpredictable to understand what works (legally) and what doesn't work, in the U.S. and the West for that matter.
 
JayGoptri

JayGoptri

Mythic
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Posts
4,557
Online
71d 5h 45m
In principle @PPEcel I agree with you that with freedom of speech people should be allowed to express or say anything they want so long as It doesn't harm anybody, however, with that being said we need some current context to describe the social-political environment we find ourselves in now. Ever since 9/11/2001 even within the United States the nation that supposedly prides itself on freedom of speech it has been a heavily contested issue for the last twenty-one years something with which you members who don't live in the United States are probably not acquainted.

In the past, there have been individuals who have wished harm on presidents without being specific or directed at implicitly where a few days later have the F.B.I. knocking on their doors to detain them for questioning and in some cases charged with making violent threats despite not naming who they wish harm on and even out of non-serious humorous joking.

In the past, there have been Muslim imams or clerics residing in the United States saying death to America and wishing harm on the United States under the faith of Allah where once again law enforcement knock on their doors detaining them.

Another example would be anti-abortionists publicly saying that they wish for an abortion clinic to explode or be set on fire where once again law enforcement came in detaining them for making terroristic threats even though they said nothing about carrying out an attack themselves where they were merely expressing sentiments of disgust. Ever since 9/11/2001 you basically have the elite power structure in an environment of fear, their collective fear, where through the mass digital surveillance state they have made many forms of what used to be freedom of speech criminal to the point of transforming it to seditious language under law, a structure of law that more and more every single year becomes completely detached from the original constitutional declaration or bill of rights upon the United States historical founding. And while the majority of incels who talk about violence, rape, pedophilic relationships out of frustrations or mental angst have no intention of doing any of those activities themselves it only takes a few incels to indulge in such activities to paint the majority of us with a negative brush which has basically already happened in the last three years with various governments describing incels or inceldom as domestic terrorism which is why all the glow niggas have been watching us carefully the last five to six years. The goal of organizations like Plebbit's IT is to make a majority if not all incels look like terrorists because the Marxists or communists under its ranks would love nothing more than to see all incel cyber places of meeting throughout the internet de-platformed and to eventually make any criticizing or saying anything disparaging about women illegal entirely. That is their ambition and goal where in the last few years they have in their activism made it where we are roughly classified as domestic terrorists even though a majority of us have no such aspirations ourselves.

There are no easy answers to any of this since we now live in a global social-political environment of fear, virtue signaling, resentment, anger, and outrage. We can try to make amends toning down some of our rhetoric which I and some others do support, but even with that, they'll never stop their relentless coordinated attacks against us, even more, troubling it is obviously clear that the elites obviously support the ideological framework of our opponents making it hard for us to merely exist at all. Then of course, since the elites obviously support our opponents when they use equal violent inflammatory language it goes completely ignored or unpunished because of the various powers backing them.

I fear the day is coming where freedom of speech will either someday be seen as a past historical relic or merely some symbolic reference that no longer has any power under the law and over the last twenty years I have witnessed this become reality more and more everywhere. And while people or individuals like to think they have protected rights that are binding under the law in an official court setting my interpretation of the world anymore is that might is right where governments have a monopoly on violence where everything is enforced under a barrel of a gun to which what the government giveth the government in many multiple cases also taketh away. :feelsjuice:
This ^:feelsokman:
 
JayGoptri

JayGoptri

Mythic
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Posts
4,557
Online
71d 5h 45m
I personally don't agree with JosefMengelecel, but like, I'm just amazed at how little CuckTears users understand the law for a group of people who keep spamming the FBI Tip Line.
Why are you surprised? This is not surprising at all. Very few people in America (or anywhere) understand the law in their respect region. And it doesn't matter anyway. This sort of thing is fuelled by emotion. One of these is the "anti-extremism" hook of the normies and leftists.
 
berais

berais

Officer
★★
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Posts
600
Online
3d 9h 2m
Why are you surprised? This is not surprising at all. Very few people in America (or anywhere) understand the law in their respect region. And it doesn't matter anyway. This sort of thing is fuelled by emotion. One of these is the "anti-extremism" hook of the normies and leftists.
I remember there was a historical figure who once said something along the lines of "We write the laws complicated so people don't understand them."
 
JayGoptri

JayGoptri

Mythic
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Posts
4,557
Online
71d 5h 45m
I remember there was a historical figure who once said something along the lines of "We write the laws complicated so people don't understand them."
Sounds about right.

But not always the case for why the lay person doesn't understand the law - We're not supposed to, that's why there are legal experts.
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Director of Counter-Counter-Radicalization
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
28,726
Online
273d 8h 33m
I remember there was a historical figure who once said something along the lines of "We write the laws complicated so people don't understand them."
it's not actually that complicated

people are just lazy and prefer to be outraged instead of knowledgeable
 
Sneir

Sneir

INCELKOMMANDO INTERPOL AGENT GLASS PUSHER COPKILLA
-
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Posts
15,128
Online
63d 12h 4m
it's not actually that complicated

people are just lazy and prefer to be outraged instead of knowledgeable
I am also lazy only one reason that I didn't commit rape yet is my laziness ( in video game)
 
JayGoptri

JayGoptri

Mythic
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Posts
4,557
Online
71d 5h 45m
it's not actually that complicated.
Yes it is! "Free speech" has become the most complicated thing to understand today because people are more interested in masturbating with it instead orienting it with real action.
people are just lazy and prefer to be outraged instead of knowledgeable
Not lazy. They prefer to masturbate with it.
 
JayGoptri

JayGoptri

Mythic
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Posts
4,557
Online
71d 5h 45m
Encouraging violence in self defense is ok. Like saying "if a foid hits you, then you have to hit her back."
Exactly. But in a world where masturbation supercedes action, it's impossible for them to interpret the law.
Advocating for illegal activity isn't illegal, like telling someone they should escortcel or buy weed, or evade taxes.
Yes. But same as above. They've made their own rules.
 
bigantennaemay1

bigantennaemay1

Aspie social drifter without purpose or home
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Posts
13,359
Online
72d 16h 5m
True/well put — many such idiots exactly like that.
It's funny, I just had this discussion with someone tonight, at a family gathering, about how people are always at each other's throats, and nobody listens to anyone else, anymore.

I didn't give him full details, of course, kept the inceldom and black pill stuff to myself, but it's defintiely becoming noticeable, I think, how hostile everyone is toward everyone else. Of course, normies can only see the tip of the iceberg, if that; we see the whole chunk of ice floating along in the ocean, as everyone ignores our warnings of it. I think you have to be coming from a place of deep, long-lasting pain in order to see the world for what it truly is. That's the only reason we see things as they are, and nobody else seems to see the whole picture, only a glimpse of it, at best.
 
cvh1991

cvh1991

Captain
★★★★
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Posts
1,858
Online
7d 10h 12m
It's funny, I just had this discussion with someone tonight, at a family gathering, about how people are always at each other's throats, and nobody listens to anyone else, anymore.

I didn't give him full details, of course, kept the inceldom and black pill stuff to myself, but it's defintiely becoming noticeable, I think, how hostile everyone is toward everyone else. Of course, normies can only see the tip of the iceberg, if that; we see the whole chunk of ice floating along in the ocean, as everyone ignores our warnings of it. I think you have to be coming from a place of deep, long-lasting pain in order to see the world for what it truly is. That's the only reason we see things as they are, and nobody else seems to see the whole picture, only a glimpse of it, at best.
Good points mate, smart thinking to keep some stuff to yourself too. In most cases it only serves to ruin your reputation in the eyes of other people sadly.

What most people want is just for everyone to suck them off by parroting back at them whatever they already believe.

And yeah our views are going to be a lot different and more free from your typical constraints since once you’re already rejected by society you’re better positioned to understand what’s wrong with it.
 
bigantennaemay1

bigantennaemay1

Aspie social drifter without purpose or home
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Posts
13,359
Online
72d 16h 5m
What most people want is just for everyone to suck them off by parroting back at them whatever they already believe.
And that's exactly what I did with him, I told a few lies, and went along with what he was saying even if I didn't believe it 100%, because at least I was socializing, and he seemed happy to be talking, so everyone won in a way. I think I'm starting to get a hang of how to do this stuff, now. Finally, at the ripe young age of 33. :dafuckfeels:
 
S

Stunner_gng

Live by the train, die by it
Joined
Dec 1, 2021
Posts
10
Online
1h 20m
Based generalcel here tho
 
Valleysian

Valleysian

Question Everything until you get the Answer.
★★
Joined
May 8, 2022
Posts
119
Online
1d 12h 36m
I was Trolling the City Council people of my town and I emailed them Something like: "I am going to hold a Lower the age of consent rally and a Protest against the shit cops in this town."
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Director of Counter-Counter-Radicalization
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
28,726
Online
273d 8h 33m
I was Trolling the City Council people of my town and I emailed them Something like: "I am going to hold a Lower the age of consent rally and a Protest against the shit cops in this town."
You get a response?
 
Valleysian

Valleysian

Question Everything until you get the Answer.
★★
Joined
May 8, 2022
Posts
119
Online
1d 12h 36m
You get a response?
Yes. Being followed around by a Little truck that said, "City of Hanford" on it. I Filmed him with my California civil right and he drove off once I did that.
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Director of Counter-Counter-Radicalization
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
28,726
Online
273d 8h 33m
Yes. Being followed around by a Little truck that said, "City of Hanford" on it. I Filmed him with my California civil right and he drove off once I did that.
lmao
 
Piss Gaming

Piss Gaming

I have 6k hours in Kovaak's
★★
Joined
May 6, 2022
Posts
149
Online
2d 3h 25m
Foids didn't even read the rule: No Pedophilia
 
MaxZM98

MaxZM98

Socially constructed loser
★★★★
Joined
May 2, 2018
Posts
4,305
Online
122d 5h 50m
I love seeing redditors seethe
 
JayGoptri

JayGoptri

Mythic
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Posts
4,557
Online
71d 5h 45m
Yes. Being followed around by a Little truck that said, "City of Hanford" on it. I Filmed him with my California civil right and he drove off once I did that.
So how did they get a location on you from the city of Hanford assembly page? Kind of hard to believe..
 
Valleysian

Valleysian

Question Everything until you get the Answer.
★★
Joined
May 8, 2022
Posts
119
Online
1d 12h 36m
So how did they get a location on you from the city of Hanford assembly page? Kind of hard to believe..
America is a Police state. I Dont know what goes on behind the scenes.
 
idk125

idk125

Banned
-
Joined
May 26, 2022
Posts
15,111
Online
62d 14h 28m
IT is like a foid attention seeker lol
 
JayGoptri

JayGoptri

Mythic
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Posts
4,557
Online
71d 5h 45m
America is a Police state. I Dont know what goes on behind the scenes.
Well America is sort of an experimental testing ground for disasterous ideas and good ones alike. Everything usually happens first there, come hell or highwater.
 
Valleysian

Valleysian

Question Everything until you get the Answer.
★★
Joined
May 8, 2022
Posts
119
Online
1d 12h 36m
Well America is sort of an experimental testing ground for disasterous ideas and good ones alike. Everything usually happens first there, come hell or highwater.
interesting.
 
i_want_emo_gf

i_want_emo_gf

Creep pilled
-
Joined
Dec 27, 2021
Posts
1,028
Online
12d 22h 23m
I don’t understand incels who want to rape. Why not just pay an escort?
 
Linesnap99

Linesnap99

Luminary
★★★★★
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Posts
12,935
Online
87d 3h 0m
I would like to add it would be much better if the law would punish the ones that allowed the rape to happen. For instance if a hole is raped , then the immediate relatives and the hole itself will be responsible for allowing the rape to happen. The relatives or guardians were unable to prevent the hole from getting raped and they must be prosecuted for negligence in taking care of the hole. If the hole has attained majority and it got raped, then the hole will be held liable for any damage caused to the rapist and has to pay compensation.
 
Linesnap99

Linesnap99

Luminary
★★★★★
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Posts
12,935
Online
87d 3h 0m
Yes it is! "Free speech" has become the most complicated thing to understand today because people are more interested in masturbating with it instead orienting it with real action.
the problem is free speech should lead to something concrete, but it doesnt.
 
JayGoptri

JayGoptri

Mythic
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Posts
4,557
Online
71d 5h 45m
the problem is free speech should lead to something concrete, but it doesnt.
That's because everyone is afraid to say what really needs to be said now days. On all fronts, all topics, and in all places.
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Director of Counter-Counter-Radicalization
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
28,726
Online
273d 8h 33m
That's because everyone is afraid to say what really needs to be said now days. On all fronts, all topics, and in all places.
That's because the left is violent.
 
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top