Tag: hate speech

How to Win Any Argument in Politics: A Complete Guide

Ian Brzeski | @ianbrzeski

Are you struggling to convince your friend on why Donald Trump is the worst and most racist president alive? Or maybe you want to convince them on why he is our Lord and Savior. Whatever the case, this article will prepare you on how you can win those arguments and convince all your close family and friends to see things from your point of view. No more stupid liberals blowing up your twitter feeds, no more Hitler-esque MAGA supporters walking around the streets. With these tips on how to beat any political opponent across the spectrum, you will become unstoppable.

How to Win Any Argument as a Conservative

Preparation

To beat somebody in an argument, you are going to need a couple of weeks to prepare. The first step when preparing to argue with somebody who is not conservative is to look in your mirror every morning and tell yourself that everybody else is a liberal snowflake. When arguing with a liberal snowflake, they are going to cry 100% of the time. It is pretty much guaranteed. Doing this will give you the motivation and confidence you need to destroy that liberal.

Furthermore, to continue your preparation, you have to listen to Ben Shapiro every night before you go to bed. Make sure to memorize every single one of his lines in every video you watch. I recommend watching the videos titled “Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Crazy Libtard” or similar.

In the Debate

Now that you have prepared for your argument, you are ready to seek out somebody to destroy. Upon finding a person, make sure the first thing you mention is how great of a president Donald Trump is. This is going to trigger and shock them. To illustrate this, their hands will be sweating, they will be profusely shaking, and their first reaction will be to call you a racist. This is precisely the kind of response you want. You now have the upper hand and are ready to obliterate them in any argument.

Some other things you may want to mention:

  • Liberalism is a disease.
  • If you are pro-choice, you are a baby killer. Therefore, any other argument you make is invalid.
  • If you do not support Israel, you hate the United States. Oh, and you also hate Jews too.
  • ISIS will take over the United States if we do not relentlessly bomb the Middle East to find our freedom.
  • If you do not stand for the flag, you are quite literally the worst person in the world and deserve to die.
  • Facts don’t care about your feelings.
  • Back the blue.
  • If you aren’t with us, you are against us.
  • It is your duty to die for your country.
  • Transgender people are mentally ill.
  • Illegal immigrants are murderers and rapists.
  • Allowing refugees into the country is the same as allowing Isis into the country.
  • The Confederate flag is not racist.
  • If you hate the government so much, why don’t you just leave?
  • Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

Closing the Debate

After presenting all of these facts, you want to hit them with the “libtard.” There is no recovery for them once you call them a “libtard.” After calling them that, walk away and do not pay attention to any single word they say. You have won. Congratulations. Go home and celebrate by grabbing a beer and putting on some Fox News in your trailer home.

How to Win Any Argument as a Liberal

Preparation

First, educate yourself, learning that both conservatives and libertarians are two sides of the same coin. After all, libertarianism and conservatism are both alt-right political ideologies that resemble fascism. Once you recognize this, it is easily assumed at this point that you are morally a better person than everybody else. Libertarians and conservatives are the most hateful and racist people out there. To make it even worse, they hate poor people. You want people to have affordable healthcare and a stable social safety net; they don’t. They honestly do not even exist outside of the internet. How could they? You have never associated with them in your life.

After you realize that you are better than everybody else is when you can start listening to comedians reuse the same Donald Trump jokes over and over again. God damn, those jokes are so funny. They never get old. When you are around your buddies, make sure to repeat those jokes because they are so damn hilarious. It is not like they watched the same John Oliver episode you watched last night.

In the Debate

Things to say in a debate:

  • Climate change will kill everybody within the next 36 hours.
  • Donald Trump is racist.
  • Hillary won the popular vote so she should be president.
  • Donald Trump is orange.
  • Russia hacked the elections.
  • Donald Trump is sexist.
  • Kavanaugh is a rapist.
  • Donald Trump is misogynistic.
  • End the wars except when Donald Trump wants to, then blow up Muslims.
  • Donald Trump is a murderer.
  • Abolish the electoral college.
  • Donald Trump is literally Hitler.
  • Making at least $30 an hour is a fundamental human right.
  • Donald Trump is a Nazi.
  • My body my choice.
  • Donald Trump is a baby.
  • Hate speech is murder.

Closing the Debate

The simplest way for you to win and effectively close out the debate is to call your opponent a racist and to start crying immediately. They will be taken aback, and be at a loss for words. They also may make fun of you, but that is further proving your point that you are the better person. Never forget that you should tune out anything points they try to make. After all, those points are inherently racist and have no real value.

How to Win Any Argument as a Libertarian

Preparation

As you scratch your neckbeard with “Liberty Defined” by Ron Paul in your hand, you have realized that everybody is a statist, even other libertarians. Libertarians are not libertarian enough, and some libertarians are too radical (@ ancaps). “Everybody is an NPC except for me,” is what you tell yourself as you look at your diverse collection of literature ranging from Murray Rothbard all the way to Milton Friedman. You have all the answers already. You do not even need this article to know how to win an argument. Friedrich Hayek taught you everything you need to know, thus, you are prepared.

In the Debate

I know you already know everything, but here are some things you may want to mention in your debate in case you forget:

  • Taxation is theft.
  • End the Fed.
  • Legalize all drugs.
  • No victim no crime.
  • Make fun of people who say “But who will build the roads?.” This is an effective and hilarious tactic because you know deep down that the private sector will be able to handle the roads. God, you are so funny.
  • Gun control is literally murder.
  • The free market will solve all problems.
  • Libertarianism is an objective and moral truth.
  • If somebody ends up leaving libertarianism, they were never a true libertarian in the first place because they must not have read Murray Rothbard. The words of Murray Rothbard will convert anybody to the one true objective truth.
  • The only good communist is a dead communist.
  • Socialism kills.
  • There is no such thing as a good cop.
  • We live in a police state.
  • But what if the child consents?

Closing the Debate

At the end of the day, you want people to do as they please as long as they are not directly hurting somebody. Your opponent obviously does not agree with this, however, so the last thing you need to do to ensure your victory is it call them “statist scum.” Statists are parasites that leech off others through the power of the state. Statists want to take away your freedoms and are the equivalent to Satan. Thus, make sure your opponent knows what kind of filth they are.

How to Win Any Argument as a Socialist

Preparation

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Repeat this phrase over and over in your head. Repeat it until that is all you can think about. These words will transcend your mind to an intellect never seen before. Let’s be honest here; you can’t just be a socialist. You have to go all the way and hit some more radical levels. Become an anarcho-communist, an anarcho-syndicalist, or even an anarcho-primitivist. Embrace more radical ideas than socialism. You are weak if you don’t. This is like when a libertarian is too afraid to become an anarcho-capitalist. Like seriously, stop being a wimp and just go full communist. Communism or nothing is what I like to say.

In the Debate

Things to mention in a debate:

  • Capitalism kills.
  • The world sucks because of capitalism.
  • Capitalism is quite literally the worst.
  • Real socialism has never been tried.
  • Scarcity is a hoax.
  • Antifa stands for anti-fascist, so they must be good and do no wrong.
  • Kill the 1%.
  • Israel deserves death.
  • Noam Chomsky’s word is the true word of God.
  • All cops are bastards.
  • Sex work is exploitation and is a direct result of capitalism.
  • Kill people who kill people because killing people is wrong.

Closing the Debate

The easiest way for you to win an argument here is to beat the living hell out of your opponent. You see this tactic with Antifa and kids on college campuses, and they always seem to face little to no repercussions. You can’t lose the argument if your hateful opponent is incapacitated.

 

The following subsections will show how you can beat unconventional political ideologies.

How to Beat a Fascist in an Argument

Look, if you can’t beat a fascist in an argument by yourself, then there is no hope for you. Just get out of politics and never look back.

How to Beat a Maoist/Stalinist in an Argument

Mao Zedong and Stalin both killed millions upon millions of people. Again, if you can’t win this argument, get out of politics. Losing here is almost as embarrassing as losing to a fascist.

How to beat an Anarcho-Primitivist in an Argument

Bring up the famed anarcho-primitivist, Ted Kaczynski. With that, your argument has been won. You’re welcome.

How to beat an Anarcho-Communist in an Argument

Tell these commies that anarchy and communism can’t go together. It is impossible. Communism=big government. Anarchy=no government. Therefore, anarcho-communism is an oxymoron. Congratulations, you just made an entire political ideology obsolete.

Guaranteed Victory

Sticking to the outline on how to win an argument while maintaining a specific political ideology as well as adhering to the framework on how to beat obscure ideologies, you will become unstoppable. There is not a single political argument that you can lose. This outline will work in every single circumstance. Want to run for president? I can guarantee that if you follow the steps I laid out for your debates, you will get at least 99% of the votes.

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk. Now you know how to obliterate and shatter anybody in an argument about politics. If there is one thing you can take away from this article, I want it to be this:  if you ever feel like you are losing an argument, cover your ears, call your opponent an idiot, and walk away. It works like a charm. It is a cheat code that works on every single argument, even non-political arguments. Now, go out there and destroy some idiots.


71 Republic takes pride in distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

How Noah Berlatsky and CNN Got Free Speech Wrong

Francis Folz | United States

In a recent CNN opinion piece, author Noah Berlatsky contended that “protecting Nazi speech doesn’t protect free speech” and concluded that a Nazi salute by a group of teenagers endangers the speech and lives of all non-Nazis. Although I credit Mr. Berlatsky for his laudable zeal and well-expressed opinion, his article is laced with multiple fallacies regarding free speech that must be confronted.

Firstly, our Bill of (Human) Rights are not, and should remain, non-negotiable, and that includes the first, second, and fourth amendments. Mr. Berlatsky attributes the belief that safeguarding controversial speech, which inadvertently protects less contentious or innocuous speech, to free speech ‘purists’.

Need I remind anyone it was less than 54 years ago that countless Civil Rights demonstrators were savagely attacked for merely utilizing their freedom of speech, expression, and assembly by law enforcement and firefighters on their solemn march to Montgomery from Selma.

It is for similar reasons that Martin Luther King Jr. wrote from his Birmingham jail cell, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” I wonder if Mr. Berlatsky disagrees.

Mr. Berlatsky proceeds, “Defending the speech of white kids doesn’t necessarily protect… marginalized people.”

To some extent, he’s right. Defending those kids doesn’t necessarily guarantee everybody’s speech of every demographic is going to be protected every time in the future. However, it does set a precedent favoring free speech compared to censorship, which should be a commonly held interest.

Mr. Berlatsky’s most startling, misguided premise about freedom of expression is whenever he discusses “giving free speech to fascists” and how organizations and judges need to balance ambiguous ‘interests’. Mr. Berlatsky blatantly misunderstands that our rights are not given to each other by society, rather they are innate, endowed to us by our Creator.

We don’t ‘give’ each other the human right to privacy, just like we don’t ‘give’ each other the 14th Amendment right to birthright citizenship. All of our rights are intrinsic to our humanity, inseparable from our existence, and deserving of our unwavering defense.

At some point in his article, I questioned if Mr. Berlatsky is aware of the equal protection clause since his attempts to justify censorship tend to fall apart when applied to groups outside of fascists. In regards to the Charlottesville rally in 2017, Berlatsky suggests that since white supremacists used their freedom to ‘terrorize’ people and one individual killed one person and injured nearly 20 others, that is cause to deny every individual within the group their human rights.

Using Mr. Berlatsky’s logic, shouldn’t all members of Antifa have their constitutional rights suspended? After all, when a Hillary Clinton supporter in Portland refused to surrender an American flag to the domestic terrorist group, Antifa members cracked his head open. And that’s only one example of their repeated malice. Shouldn’t their hatred be enough to disband the violent, left-wing faction?

What if you applied Mr. Berlatsky’s logic to religious fanatics instead of ideological extremists? Wouldn’t the tragedy of September 11th be enough to deny every American Muslim the freedoms of speech, expression, and assembly because of the actions of 19 men?

After all, haven’t Islamic extremists terrorized multiple nations and killed thousands of people throughout the globe in the last two decades? Any reasonable person would not punish a group of people for the actions of its individual members but would advocate for equal protection under the law, foils to Mr. Berlatsky’s arguments.

Next, Mr. Berlatsky makes the case that the Wisconsin school district should’ve reprimanded the students for their inappropriate picture that appears to show them performing a Nazi salute, despite being off-campus and unaffiliated with the school district at the time of the photo. In an attempt to buttress his argument, Mr. Berlatsky reports that a school suspended 20 students for a tweet that falsely accused a female teacher of flirting with students, justifying the suppression of expression.

The problem is that the Salem students were guilty of libel and accused a staff member of coquetting with her pupils, a criminal offense. The only crime the Wisconsin teens committed was taking a reprehensible picture, making the situation incomparable.

Mr. Berlatsky’s final argument centers around discipline and race. According to the Government Accountability Office, Black students, in 2014, were 15.5 percent of the U.S. student populace, yet accounted for almost 39% of suspensions. Mr. Berlatsky attributes the disproportion to schools inevitably using their disciplinary authority against ‘marginalized students’ at the expense of others.

However, American schools are extremely localized, meaning parents and administrators have the final say on countless decisions, from electronics to dress codes to disciplinary policies. Regrettably, American schools are nearly as segregated as they were in the 1960s.

So in other words, the black students who are subjected to disproportionate suspensions are largely attending non-white majority schools which choose to chastise their students at a rate that is, apparently, acceptable with school personnel and parents.

Free speech is under siege like never before in American history. I hate bigotry. I detest fascism. However, I appreciate our collective, human right to speech and expression, even if I disapprove of somebody’s opinions and/or actions.

Today, the groups whom people loathe most are nazism and fascism. Nazism, by definition, is national socialism. Socialism is just a few steps away from communism. Communism has left over 100 million people dead in 100 years. What would people think if you could no longer raise your fist in public because of it’s communist insignia?

We are better as a society for the ability to openly express all of our ideas, even ones we don’t concur with, rather than only tribal-mentality approved perspectives, regardless of ideology. If detestable, bigoted opinions are allowed to be expressed in the open, it allows society to weed out the most reprehensible of ideas. It is best we don’t take for granted the ability to communicate freely and openly with each other, as anything less is a form of authoritarianism, oppression, and tyranny.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Featured Image Source

Freedom of Speech Upheld in Face of ‘Nazi Salute’ Backlash

Nickolas Roberson | United States

School officials at Baraboo High School of Baraboo, Wisconsin, have decided that the students who were involved in a now-viral immage of them performing a Nazi, “sieg heil,” salute will not be punished. The picture was taken prior to Baraboo High School’s 2018 spring prom, and posted to the High School’s twitter account.

The school has faced significant backlash, with many claiming that the students are white supremacists and Nazis. In the face of the backlash, Lori Mueller, the superintendent of the school district stated in a letter sent to parents of the school district, “…we cannot know the intentions in the hearts of those who were involved. Moreover, because of the students’ First Amendment rights, the district is not in a position to punish the students for their actions.”

This is a tremendous improvement in the recognition of our natural and Constitutional rights in our modern-day school systems, as many high schools and universities crack down on almost any student or faculty member who dares speak out against the leftist collective opinions that run rampant in educational institutions. A prime example of this violation of our First Amendment right can be found at Shawnee State University, where a philosophy professor was forced to use a transgender student’s preferred gender pronoun rather than their name. The teacher, Nicholas Meriwether, referred to one of his students by their preferred name, as their proposed gender identity went against their biological gender of being a male, thus going against Meriwether’s evangelical Christian beliefs. Rather than respecting the professor’s freedom of speech and preference of using the student’s name, the university, donning their totalitarian jackboots, clamped down on his right to free speech, and forced the teacher to utilize the student’s gender pronouns of “she” and “Miss”.

It is a dreadful shame that public schools and universities, the proposed and advertised catalysts of innovation, expansion in logic and reason, and scientific progress and expansion, are strangling themselves of the freedoms of thought, expression, and speech. Nowadays, they choose to adopt the tantalizing, yet dreadful, ideologies of thought control and suppression, attempting to please the wicked idealogues of cultural Marxism.

Hopefully, with the recognition and respect of the First Amendment right of the students at Baraboo High School who participated in the Nazi salute photograph and Twitter posting, other public schools and institutions will follow this same path of respecting our natural and constitutional freedoms and liberties. Now, this absolutely does not mean we should accept the terrible, malevolent, and oppressive ideas of Nazism; on the contrary, one should always speak out against any and all totalitarian idea groups and theories. However, even though these students are most likely not Nazis and the photograph was a joke, we must respect the opinions of our fellow countrymen. To quote the author Evelyn Beatrice Hall, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

There Is No Moral Reason to Prohibit Hate Speech

By Teagan Fair | United States

The First Amendment, naturally, comes first in the Bill of Rights. As such, it is the most important right. It has become an emblem of American society since our founders wrote it into law. Founder and hero George Washington once said the following on free speech:

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

He was absolutely right. He, along with the other founders of this country, and any man or woman that values liberty, knew that there is simply no moral reason to prohibit free speech, even hate speech.

Allow me to ask an interesting hypothetical: If we can limit speech, then where exactly does one draw the line? The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not safeguard “advocacy of the use of force” if it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and is “likely to incite or produce such action”. So, if you wish to draw the line there, it already exists. This makes sense and is just, as we must take action against serious threats. However, there should be no more limitations on free speech.

Hate Speech is Free Speech

Anything else, including hate speech, is simply one group of people enforcing values onto others. Ultimately, there is nothing that makes one set of values more or less important than others. This strikes a second question: whose values become proper, and whose become hate speech?

Let’s take a blatantly brazen and noxious group as an example: the Nazis. Many people may support a prohibition on the hate speech of Nazis. This is not morally correct. Sure, I hate Nazis as much as the next guy. Almost all can agree that Nazism is an ideology of hatred. However, provided that they are not advocating for direct and violent action, the Consitution still guards their rights.

Though they are morally wrong in intent, it is just as wrong to prohibit them from speaking. This goes for any ideology, on any side of the political spectrum. No matter how politically radical you may be, you have the same rights to free speech as anyone else. As said by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Hate speech, without a doubt, is free speech.

Violence and Hate Speech

Many people claim that hate speech is either violent itself or can provoke violence. Yet, hurt feelings do not mean that something is violent. On a moral level, it may be practical and/or moral to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. However, it is truly horrendous to ask the government to steal someone’s money or lock them away for espousing an opinion you do not like. This is no different than the government arresting an innocent man. Using violence itself, the state is enforcing the values of one person onto another. There is no other way to put it: this is a form of oppression, by the government and by fellow citizens. If the speech incites violence, it is another story. But there is a clear difference between a brash insult and a call to violence.

Moreover, it is worth noting that these rights apply universally. Age, gender, race, and creed, among other things, cannot take away free speech. The phrase, “You don’t get free speech until you’re an adult” is fairly common. Surprisingly, many children actually repeat it. This is completely untrue. As I noted previously, in 1969, the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines that the First Amendment does apply to public school students, in a 7-2 majority. This applies to charter schools as well, as they act as public organizations.

The right to free speech is arguably one of the most important ones. Speaking is something that we do every day. To narrow it down, speaking about controversial topics is also quite regular. The government already influences or controls your business, your car, your money, your devices, your weaponry, and countless other rights. If the State controls our right to something as basic as free speech, what kind of society do we live in? Certainly, that would not be one that is civil or desirable.


Get awesome merch. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Supreme Court to Solve Free Speech v. Private Corporation Debate

By Mason Mohon | United States

Brett Kavanaugh’s turbulent entrance into the Supreme Court will first be met with a potentially groundbreaking free speech case. The case is that of Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-702. As CNBC reports, this case centers around whether a private operator of a public access television network is considered a state actor, which would leave it accountable to the free speech protections in the First Amendment.

Continue reading “Supreme Court to Solve Free Speech v. Private Corporation Debate”