https://twitter.com/gcochran99/status/1220353514745942016

https://twitter.com/dr_appie/status/1224400641059098624

The left didn't win elections by actually subverting a sufficient number whites to vote against their own interests

It simply imported voters that are de-facto beneficiaries of the the disingenuous denial of divergent evolution in humans

Don't be overwhelmed by the small minority of "white" traitors whose voices are being magnified by the corporate media

the whites that are subverted, as insufficient in numbers as they may be, act as gateways for increasing lunacy. their acceptance allows shit to get nuttier and nuttier

But they hold no power as they are a minority

Even in the retarded system of full-franchise democracy
Where parasites can vote to steal money from the producing class

they hold institutional power as a minority

without them, alot of the goofiest progressive shit would die on the vine

True

They control a significant subset of the channels of information(universities, schools, news broadcasting agencies, social media platforms)

Which informs the decisions of normal whites

yes

https://twitter.com/HouseofWIM/status/1224481995884883968

Oh lorde

https://twitter.com/PopCrave/status/1140266023301582849

"Third one in the oven"

kek

Should freedom of speech maximisation be a goal worth while?

It really depends on what you mean by freedom of speech maximisation that is pretty vague.

Like anything goes

right to do libel, right to incite violence

while personally I think its cringe to be like "we can't allow people to question the state!"

I don't think one can really make a good argument for allowing crimes in the name of free speech.

Fraud, for example, I don't think should be allowed under free speech.

But the person is not punished because of some banned word or some idea not allowed to be shared, the act of commiting fraud is what is being punished.

If you conspired to murder someone. You should be punished for conspiring to murder someone. It doesn't matter if you used your speech to do it.

I don't think it conflicts with freedom of speech to punish acts.

If I scream in someone's ear so loud that they get hearing loss, I should get punished for that but I shoudn't get punished because of the word I was screaming.

That's my general position at least.

Punish acts, don't have a list of words or ideas that cannot be spoken under penalty of law. (unless maybe you have state secrets or non disclosure agreements or something like that)

Curt Doolittle is absolutely right on this issue. Everyone should be free to say whatever they want, but you should also be totally accountable for anything you say that has consequence.

@JFGariepy Any plans for TPS #666? Discussion of LaVeyan Satanism perhaps? The Catholics in the crowd might not like it, but I think it would be interesting.

do Crowley instead but yea do something spooky on 666

<:ahem:639979147782914084>

I always thought it would be silly to have anyone but Styx on for that one

Or Razorfist

Interesting guest, but not for #666

better for #669

Crowley would be interesting too, yeah