Violence isn’t debate or conversation: Speech, Disagreement & the muddy slope of Hate Speech censorship

Social Justice liberals would like to define spoken & published disagreement with their advocacy as violence.

Violence is, however, defined as:


*Violence* wouldn’t be people talking & speaking a debate. The Antifa in Western countries have to learn that disagreement through conversation IS NOT Violence.

As well, dissent expressed through conversation or debate is NOT Hate Speech:

Hate Speech

So this would mean that speaking & writing dissent must be allowed. You must have the right to disagree with people who are outraged advocates for their politics and beliefs.


What happens when expressed dissent or disagreement are publicly censored & defined as violence?

People end up doing violence because their speech was heavily censored.

So whenever people were forbidden & outlawed to have a conversation or a debate, then usually everyone would show up at public spaces to express their dissent as violence.

Or whenever you couldn’t use your words, you eventually go into public spaces to use your body to protest and to foment.

Two examples would be:

1) The current 2017-2018 public dissent in Iran: Andy C. Ngo, #IranProtests



2) Any society & their government who are pro-censorship.

This would mean any society regardless of being a theocracy, democracy, or a communist country who chose to define speech as violence whenever this speech was publicly made by people as their own disagreement, debate or conversation that expressed their dissent.

This further means that Social Justice liberals, or the current Antifa, shouldn’t be pro-censorship toward any person or group of people they define as being “Privileged“.

Or this would mean that it’s a moral and practical error to censor one group of people you define as “Privileged” or as undeserving of the right to freely speak their disagreement in public spaces toward your beliefs & advocacy. You could very well in a decade or in the future end up being defined as “Privileged”, and feel a crack down of censorship on yourself and your right to speak your dissent.

So it’s important and an emergency to sustain the right of speech within public spaces that express dissent or disagreement. These spaces are university campuses, etc.

HOWEVER, whenever a society has chosen to be pro-censorship, then this has happened:

From the 20th century, examples would be Germany’s Third Reich Nazis (Socialists who were Fascists), Italy’s Benito Mussolini and his Italian Social Republic supporters (Socialists turned Fascists), the former Soviet Union’s Bolshevik Communists, China’s Chairman Mao Zedong and the Maoist Communists, or Cambodia’s Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge Communists. As well, there is North Korea’s Communist government of the Kims (currently Kim Jong Un).

The above examples are from the previous 20th century, and North Korea’s Communist government is still ruling.

Furthermore, there are MANY more examples of societies throughout history previous to the 20th century who went wrong whenever they became pro-censorship toward groups of people they defined as “Privileged” , “Deplorable” , or as “Unwanted”.

So Hate Speech is a muddy slippery slope. People, like Social Justice advocates, slip and make fickle decisions on what Hate Speech is and about who they target.

Any group of people could be defined as being Hate Speech propagandists, as being morally wrong, or not “on the right side of history” WHENEVER the Social Justice liberals get fussy and feel outrage at whomever. The Antifa could very much turn on their own IF such people dared to refute the goals of the Antifa. The Khmer Rouge certainly turned on their own.

So tolerance of speech can become less and less whenever people, like the Antifa, have no experience with what violence realistically is. They also would do real violence to silence speech from people who upset their feelings, but wouldn’t define their actions as real violence. Or the people who speak irksome ideas to refute the Antifa would be defined by the Antifa as doing violence because their speech to the Antifa is violence.

The Antifa, or Social Justice liberals, therefore have a major blindspot:

Violence is a physical force or use of your body to push, hit, shoot or blow up other people you don’t like, you want to silence and whom you perceive as “Privileged” , “Deplorable” , or as “Unwanted”. Violence isn’t conversation that expresses refutation, dissent or debate.

The lesson to learn is: Use your words & tolerate conversation. Otherwise, the people who refute the Antifa with conversation & debate will have only ONE option, which would be to use their body (not their words) to foment an opposition to the Antifa within public spaces.

The Antifa or Social Justice advocates must drop their righteous belief that ONLY they can have the right of free speech and expression. They’re righteous enough to keep themselves blind to gross mistakes they make while doing their militant advocacy.

One mistake the Antifa have been making is their arrogance. They are arrogant to believe that their speech couldn’t be wrong nor incite wrong actions to be done to those they hate and think of as “Privileged”.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s