'The funny part is that all of the colleges have openly held anti-white demonstrations and nobody gave a shit. But when the juice is given the squeeze all of the colleges flip the fuck out.

I imagine more than a few kids are starting to come around to /pol/'s messaging.';

'>>1290985
Nobody setting up camp to protest for Palestine is coming around to /pol/'s messaging, but feel free to huff that copium if you need to.';

'>>1290983
why would you bother protesting on behalf of palestinians. I hate jews too, but who gives a shit about palistine. even the other muslims hate them.
also top kek at these libs learning the hard way that the jews control the universities and the police';

'>>1290985
>/pol/'s messaging

/pol/ = anti-jew bigot scum
woke = anti-zionist all human are equal';

'>>1290983
Paste the article cockstain';

'>>1290990
He's spamming threads with bad faith requests for article text again';

'>>1290987
Why do you hate Jewish people? What have they done to you? How are they different from anyone else beside religious belief?';

'>>1290986
Believe the poster means they have found it and may be following in general, not while 'protesting'.';

'Well, colleges are funded by the government and the government cant punish you for free speech. So, they're right.';

'>>1290989
more like

/pol/ = anti-everyone since nothing is sacred there
woke = racists and bigots in full denial wrapped in self-righteous narcissism';

'>>1291011
>the government cant punish you for free speech
Sure it can!

You see, these same protestors have spent years begging the government to regulate speech, and for it to decide whats free speech and whats hate speech, and to ban any speech they don't like. Now, shockingly, the government is using these powers that these people wanted, to go after the people who supported it in the first place.

I'm sure no one saw this coming, and the people who did surely weren't shouted down by these same people has bigots or Nazis or anything like that.';

'>>1291014
Protesting a genocide isn't hate speech, and only Jews would disagree';

'>>1291016
>missing the point: the post
When you give the government carte blanch to make laws deciding what is and isn't hate speech, you don't get to complain when they decide to use those laws against you

"Who would have thought the powers I gave to the government to persecute my political opponents would ever be used against me?!"- the average college-aged leftist';

'>>1291016
>Protesting a genocide isn't hate speech
That's true, but there have been many incidences of protestors being antisemitic';

'>>1291016
>hate speech
There is no such thing as "hate speech" in the US. We have the 1st amendment.';

'All that matters is jews need to die.';

'>>1291000
I'm not a man silly goose';

'Anyone who gets kicked out of college for protesting is going to win a lawsuit against the college, and get a refund for their time spent in classes as well as the tuition they paid, damages they suffered, etc. The colleges will almost certainly settle out of court, but who really cares because it's all backed by taxpayer money anyway and it's not like the dean of the college is paying it out of his salary.';

'>>1291036
No one knows because OP didn't paste the article text.';

'>>1290986
>he doesn't know
If you protest Israel in any context, you will get your life ruined. At best you will be unemployable, at worst you will be debanked and put on a no-fly list. This, coincidentally, coincides with the conspiracy theory that zionists control our government.
Fuentes went down this same path. He used to be a conservative college kid, criticized foreign spending in his school paper, was shunned by his peers and then he began noticing.
Those kids are going through the same onboarding process. They are beginning to realize that all "conspiracy theories" have a hint of truth to them.';

'>>1291006
because they caused the 2008 financial collapse, fund basically all of gun control, imported the illegals, invented tinder, control the banks, control the media, control the government, invented feminism, ect ect ect';

'It's funny how the right wing suddenly believes police brutality at protests is bad';

'>>1291069
The right wingers of today are not the right wingers that supported George Bush 20 years ago';

'>>1291070
They're the right wing who cheered on police brutality during BLM protests just a few years ago';

'>>1291071
I don't feel like the BLM riots are a very good example of police brutality at all. Aren't there thousands of pictures of police taking the knee at BLM protests? Can you show me a single picture of police taking a knee at these anti-israeli protests?';

'>>1291068
You have been misled.';

'>>1291072
You mean the Boogaloo Riots?';

'>>1291043
Conservative college kids don't protest for Palestine.

Again, you seem to have confused "for Palestine" and "against Israel". Fucking idiot.

Conservatives are buttmad about US aiding Israel (and even then that's rare since most are Zionists) because muh tax money, not muh ethnic cleansing. You are coping hard if you think isolationists spouting shit about foreigners getting tax dollars are gonna be at home next to exchange students in keffiyehs calling for increased humanitarian aid to Palestine and for the US to leverage its foreign influence to stop the fighting.';

'>>1291070
They are, actually. It's just right wingers collectively turned out to completely unprincipled.';

'>>1291021
>We have the 1st amendment.
You're arguing the government can punish speech. Be logically consistent.';

'>>1291017
>When you give the government carte blanch to make laws deciding what is and isn't hate speech
That never happened though.';

'>>1291073
I have not
>>1291071
police brutality doesn't exist. blm thinks getting arrested for doing violent crimes is brutality';

'>>1291082
Adults are talking, please don't interrupt';

'>>1291072
why would cops take a knee for the palistinians? the jews control the police, therefore the cops support jewish causes like blm and israel';

'>>1291078
>You're arguing the government can punish speech.
No I'm not, that's a different poster.
>>1291077
>They are, actually.
I was in high school when Bush invaded Iraq. I hated Bush for a long time and considered myself liberal. Now I vote for Trump. Your political views are extinct.';

'>>1291083
cool, you don't have an argument because you are a jewish faggot. notice how quickly and viciously the jews go after any public figure or protest that points out the jews control everything?';

'>>1291086
Jewish boogeymen under your bed?';

'>>1291086
Not Jewish or the other cobtributor, but Ive never seen what you are describing with Jewish people 'going after' anyone';

'>>1290986
Wtf is copium? Is this a word you just made up? What does it actually mean? You sound like a whiney child.';

'>>1291092
didn't kanya say the jews control the music industry and then get dropped by basically literally everyone in the music industry for antisemitism?
>>1291091
you are acting like we aren't literally in a thread about the jews using their power to destroy the lives of kids who protest against them';

'>>1291068
Wow, your really grasping. One single religious group can not cause all that. Im not Jewish and I 100% support gun control. Next, the 2008 'financial crisis' was caused by poor political desicions in over the previous 50 years under the Bush 1 & 2, Regan, Ford, and Nixon administrations.

The illegals imports was started by rich cotton farmers in thw south and is being continued by the rich vefetable & dmfruit farmers in California, Arizona and Georgia.

All in all, I think the Jewish people are pretty good for society, they did invent some awesome bagels and deli meats.

I could keep going on with disproving all your theories but im bored of you now.';

'>>1291096
>One single religious group can not cause all that.
yeah, just ignore that the jews control the media, banks, hollywood
> Im not Jewish
don't lie, reddit spacer
>and I 100% support gun control.
because you are an evil piece of shit who wants to do the holocaust, but for real, to white people.
>Next, the 2008 'financial crisis' was caused by
lol no. It was caused by clinton repealing glass steagall and jewish bankers using the deregulation to give mortgages to blacks and illegals in white towns to lower the property values so they could buy up all the property like blackrock, which is owned by jews, is doing now.
>The illegals imports was started by rich cotton farmers
if you are talking about the slave trade, a bunch of the slave traders were jews and jews owned more slaves per capita than white people did
>All in all, I think the Jewish people are pretty good for society, they did invent some awesome bagels and deli meats.
no its fine the jews destroyed America and are currently fucking over all the kids at columbia because they make bagels
top fucking kek
>I could keep going on with disproving all your theories but im bored of you now.
you haven't disproved a single fucking one. All you did is blame republicans with no evidence, talk about slavery when we were talking about illegals and then say jews were good because they invented bagels when they didn't even do that.';

'>>1291101
I am Republican and what is a Reddit spacer??

I did disprove everything you said because you never included a shred of legitimite sources so why should I? Am just playing the same game you are.

Never said the invented bagels, said they invented good bagels.

No, wasnt talking about the slave trade so stop embarrassjng yourself, or putting words in my mouth before you go any further.

Jews are just people like you and me, there is not anything wrong with them. They are the plumbers & electricians, doctors & lawyers, computer programmers, astronauts, truck drivers and grocery store workers, etc, etc. You dont need to have this much hatred for a group that is not to blame for any of the issues you have stated.

Once again, you've bored me.';

'>>1291106
>I am Republican
no you aren't. you want to ban guns and blamed 2008 on every post Ike republican.
>and what is a Reddit spacer??
(((you)))
>I did disprove everything you said because you never included a shred of legitimite sources so why should I?
you didn't disprove shit, you typed random nonsense and now you are sealioning
>Never said the invented bagels,
goal post
>No, wasnt talking about the slave trade
you were literally talking about picking cotton, you jewish retard
>Jews are just people
no
>and me
you are jewish though
> there is not anything wrong with them.
they are trying to destroy all white countries
>They are the plumbers & electricians
lol no
> truck drivers and grocery store workers
lol no
>You dont need to have this much hatred for a group that is not to blame for any of the issues you have stated.
they literally caused every single problem in the world today
>Once again, you've bored me.
is this part of the JIDF script? you jews always do this and then come back and reply anyway. Like you think this is an insult, but you seem to be hanging on my every word';

'>>1291093
>Wtf is copium?
You must be under 60 to post here.';

'>>1291085
>Your political views are extinct.
Your president is Biden.';

'>>1291113
Even Democrats don't try to pretend like Biden is in charge of anything. He brags about his ass being wiped on camera.';

'>>1291076
>Conservatives are buttmad about US aiding Israel (and even then that's rare since most are Zionists) because muh tax money, not muh ethnic cleansing.
You're retarded and gay.
1) Only a small percentage of the movement is comprised of lefties and progressives. Arguments to the contrary are a psyop developed by zionist neocons in an attempt to galvanize the republican base from joining the movement.
2) The majority of conservatives are not zionists. The majority of conservatives in CONGRESS are zionists because they are evangelical neocons. Conservative Christians writ large are against funding Israel because ethnic cleansing contravenes Christian ethics.
3) When a kid gets thrown back into a squad car for protesting Israel, it's not going to matter which side of the aisle they are on. They will get radicalized all the same.
Go back to shiddit and/or lurk moar.';

'>>1291115
>Even Democrats don't try to pretend like Biden is in charge of anything
Do you think the guy sitting in court for dozens of felony counts right now is?

Do me a favor. At the next Jan 6th, catch a bullet.';

'>>1291119
I think if we actually voted on the person who runs the world they would have made voting illegal a long time ago.';

'>>1291076
>most are zionists
Not anymore jew. The redpill is spreading fast even among the NPCs. This is the end of the line for wicked Jews such as you.';

'Nothing more I want than America to unite in its hatred of the evil Jew. Then we can remove the worthless Christians and Muslims.';

'>>1291126
follow your leader';

'>>1291120
In your experience, do leaders often outlaw voting after being installed?

Maybe the organizations you like to join are a bit fascistic and you should find better social circles?

Anyway, the world's way too much of a shitshow to assume one person or entity runs shit.';

'>>1291121
>Not anymore jew
Not Jewish.

Anyway
>https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/10/03/more-white-evangelicals-than-american-jews-say-god-gave-israel-to-the-jewish-people/
>82% of White Evangelicals say Israel is for the Jews
>compared with only 47% of religious Jews

Virtually all American Zionists are fucking nutbag Evangelical Republicans and that's not gonna change anytime soon as long the Republican party and Evangelical Christianity remain intertwined. Only 16% of Dems are Evangelicals.
>https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/party-affiliation/democrat-lean-dem/

While we're at it
>https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/07/11/american-views-of-israel/
>71% of Republicans have a favorable view of Israel
>vs 44% of Dems

Really you shouldn't be calling people you think support Israel Jews. You should be calling them redhats. Fucking dumbass.';

'>>1291128
>In your experience, do leaders often outlaw voting after being installed?
I guess not; they usually just jail their opponents who could feasibly beat them in any fair election. Hmmm....';

'>>1291134
It's easy to jail them when they blatantly commit crimes.';

'>>1291013
>woke = racists and bigots in full denial wrapped in self-righteous narcissism

This is partly true.
Call me "Red pilled" "woke"

A sort of pink pill.

Trannys are women and anyone 18 and over can trans.
Don't bite the hand that feeds u(poor and middle class whites need gibs too)';

'>>1291135
>It's easy to jail them when they blatantly commit crimes.
It's easy to jail them when you control the police and judges.';

'cope from chubs off the charts itt
>protest da juice!
>and then arrest all the college kids!';

'>>1291143
It's easy to control the police and the judges when the people actually support your leadership.

Maybe try winning New York next time?';

'>>1291147
>It's easy to control the police and the judges when the people actually support your leadership.
I'm not sure one really has anything to do with the other. Can you support this with some sort of argument?';

'>>1291148
(Samefag)
Additionally it would seem that your argument is that dictators can only maintain control if they have the support of the populace. If they didn't have support of the people, they wouldn't control the military/police/judges, they wouldn't be in charge, right?

I feel like you're making a specific argument that you believe applies to Donald Trump and nobody else. Is that because Trump is the only dictator that has ever existed in history? If your logic only applies to him and nobody else... that's some pretty faulty logic, isn't it?';

'>>1291130
>Literal wall of copium posting
Yup; the jew is afraid';

'>>1291153
gonna vote for the orange zionist? or are you not even american';

'>>1291130
To be fair that study is skewed because it defines a Jew as anyone who is either religiously, ethnically, ancestrally, or who were not Jewish but we're raised by at least one Jewish parent.

Evangelical is a religious group.

I would wager that people who are jewishly religious would feel Israel is for the Jews, but sadly we will never know because the article didn't compare apples to apples';

'>>1291130
Also, my source for >>1291155 is the first hyperlink in the poll, then navigate to the section "what defines a Jew"

They aren't comparing two religious populations, they are comparing a fully religious sample group with a group that is estimated to be less than half religious, and the whole "did God give x to y" is am inherently religious question';

'>>1291155
being jewish doesn't mean being a zionist. trotsky for example wrote an essay critical of the zionist movement, where he posited jewish settlement in the middle east would lead to pretty much exactly what's occurring now, an out of control spiral of violence which is counterintuitive to the issue zionism is supposed to solve';

'>>1291130
Actually, to continue on, only 33% of who they classified as Jewish are "very religious", whereas im sure the evangelical group is likely 2-3x that rate.

Asking a question regarding if God did or did not do something that's written in a religious text is definitely going to be interpreted to be true in a much higher rate amongst religious adherent populations than non-religious populations';

'>>1291157
>being jewish doesn't mean being a zionist
Yeah but my point is is they asked a question to a group if they believed something that happened in a religious text is true, and in one population 100% of them believe in that religious text, and then in the other population only 33% believe that religious text to be true

Of course the 100% religious group is going to be much higher when asked that question, it's not an apples to apples comparison and you know this is true';

'>>1291155
>To be fair that study is skewed because it defines a Jew as anyone who is either religiously, ethnically, ancestrally, or who were not Jewish but we're raised by at least one Jewish parent.
Motherfucker, the 47% specifies religious Jews and I specified that. Non-religious Jews were separated out into a specific category, of which only 12% held that view.

>I would wager that people who are jewishly religious would feel Israel is for the Jews, but sadly we will never know because the article didn't compare apples to apples
It did. You're illiterate. Or lying. And coping hard.

>>1291156
See above

>>1291158
See above

>>1291159
See above';

'>>1291160
Oh I do see that now.

Once again I disagree in the comparison, the overall Christian rate is 55% versus 47% for religious Jews.

Sure Evangelical rate is 82%, they are the most conservative of Christians.
Probably Hasidic Jewish belief in this sort of thing would be an apples to Apple comparison';

'>>1291160
>>1291161
Oh wait, when you compare the similar groups it is basically the same exact number. Hasidic rate is 83%';

'>>1291160
Kek the black Protestants believe it the most. They are tied with the ultra Orthodox Jewish population at 89%';

'>>1291161
But yeah considering all of the Conservative Christian groups believe this at the same rates as the conservative Jewish groups it really seems like more of a abrahamic religion thing (exception Muslims) then some sort of weird Christian-specific belief

I really think you're just biased in the matter';

'>>1291164
Whoops meant for >>1291160';

'>>1291164
>But yeah considering all of the Conservative Christian groups believe this at the same rates as the conservative Jewish groups
I'mma let you in on a little secret. There are more Christians than Jews in America. By like a lot.

My underlying point was that your average Zionist is just a fucking conservative an probably an Evangelist. And I brought up religion specifically because people are far less likely to change political beliefs tied up in religion just due to political actions by US or Israeli governments.';

'>>1291167
Oh so now your pivoting from percentage rates to absolute counts.
Good job anon, you just gained so much credibility';

'>>1291014
>these same protestors have spent years begging the government to regulate speech
This is one of the more confusing /pol/ talking points. Do they know they're blatantly lying or do they genuinely conflate Twitter banning them for spamming racial slurs as "the government regulating speech"?';

'>>1291169
You do understand that democrats have been trying (and in some ways succeeding) to censor conservatives for "spreading dangerous misinformation" for the last four years, right? Not just over COVID, but crime statistics too.';

'>>1291169
We already have the receipts of the Biden administration "advising" Facebook/Twitter/etc on who to ban and for what.

The government using a third party to do things that would be illegal for them to do themselves is still a blatant violation of law. Any "private" entity acting on government orders/direction/funding is considered a government act. That's not my take, that's just legal precedent that has existed for a long time and for obvious reasons.';

'>>1291171
(Samefag)
So for example if you believed the 2nd amendment only applies to "Official Government Employees" then all they would have to do is hire a private contractor to go confiscate peoples firearms. Or since the government can't perform a search without a warrant, they could just hire a private security company to go search peoples' homes, since they aren't really government employees, right?

None of that shit makes any sense.';

'>>1291172
The government can request that people say and not say things. It can't order that people say or not say things.

>but every request from the government is an order
They're not orders if you can ignore them without consequences, which Elon Musk, Hiroyuki, Chris Best, and countless other right-wingers do every day.';

'>>1291169
blatant lies, their bread and butter';

'>>1291173
>It can't order that people say or not say things.
Nor can it request a private company ban people for things they've said, unless those things are specifically illegal and those people could be arrested for saying them. Threats of violence for example.

But since we already know the government is "requesting" social media companies to ban and delete things that are completely legal under the 1st amendment, it's illegal censorship.';

'>>1291175
what makes you think foreign propaganda is protected under the first amendment';

'>>1291175
(Samefag)
I forgot to mention that the government isn't just making these requests, they're also paying money to Facebook and Twitter, etc. simply for having this cozy relationship. Setting up custom software to allow the government to monitor communications, etc. Sure, it "costs" social media companies money to continue this relationship, but what gives the government the right to spend money on censoring posts that aren't direct calls for violence? Nothing that I'm aware of.';

'>>1291176
If it wasn't, then international advertising would be illegal in the United States.';

'>>1291178
is it conflation day?';

'>>1291176
>foreign propaganda
I'm not aware of any legal definition in the US for this. Hate speech is also not a legally defined term here. I'm not aware of any "foreign propaganda" exemption to the 1st amendment. Enlighten me.';

'>>1291173
The fed is like the mafia. If they ask you to do something, it's not an ask.
>They're not orders if you can ignore them without consequences
You can't, anon. All of those people you're talking about were threatened by congress and/or already bought by the feds.
Why do you think the tiktok ban exists. Do you think any of these people actually give a shit about the first amendment? No, clearly not.';

'>>1291180
the first amendment applies to american citizens, not bots and shills on twitter';

'>>1291179
Advertising is a kind of propaganda anon. Don't be dumb.';

'>>1291183
>let me make vast sweeping comparisons or you're dumb
nigga shut up';

'>>1291171
>We already have the receipts of the Biden administration "advising" Facebook/Twitter/etc on who to ban and for what.
Ah, okay, so its the latter. You conflate Twitter banning you with the government regulating speech.

>The government using a third party to do things that would be illegal for them to do themselves is still a blatant violation of law
So it seems like its a combination of a few things - you loudly not understanding the first amendment and conflating social media platforms banning people with government regulating speech. The government never used a third party to regulate speech. The government, in the Twitter files, sent accounts to Twitter that they recommended for review and potential enforcement action if they violated Twitter's ToS and for 90%+ of these accounts Twitter did nothing. Twitter, in their own e-mails, remained consistent that violation of the ToS was the only measure for account enforcement to which the FBI never protested and Twitter received zero punishment for doing.

Even if Twitter did ban every account on behalf of the FBI it has nothing to do with the first amendment. The first amendment prevents congress from establishing laws regulating speech. You have no constitutional right to use Twitter. Getting banned from Twitter is not an enforcement of any law. You can take issue with the FBI being involved in reviewing accounts or contacting Twitter or attempting to weight in on ToS issues - that's completely fair. It just has nothing to do with the first amendment and is a complete abandonment of the claim that the left wants the government to regulate speech. Democrats have proposed precisely 0 pieces of legislation regulating speech.';

'>>1291184
You're dumb because you don't understand that advertising is literally propaganda. As in, definitionally.';

'>>1291182
The first amendment applies to our federal and state governments. The federal government is the one violating it.';

'>>1291185
>The government, in the Twitter files, sent accounts to Twitter that they recommended for review and potential enforcement action if they violated Twitter's ToS
Yes, that's the exact violation of the 1st amendment that I'm referring to. Attempting to censor speech that is clearly protected under the 1st amendment. Thanks for understanding.';

'>>1291175
>Nor can it request a private company ban people for things they've said, unless those things are specifically illegal and those people could be arrested for saying them.
It absolutely can. I don't agree that they should, obviously, but there's nothing illegal about that. The first amendment prohibits congress from making laws regulating speech. Getting banned from Twitter has nothing to do with the law.

>But since we already know the government is "requesting" social media companies to ban and delete things that are completely legal under the 1st amendment, it's illegal censorship.
Where does it say in the first amendment that people are legally entitled to a Twitter account?';

'>>1291186
and revenge porn of hunter is just an advertisement, right';

'>>1291182
The first amendment limits the government, not the people, from infringing on the rights of US citizens.
Not that they give a shit about the constitution anymore. The US has already seized the assets of Russian-Americans in the US without granting them due process.';

'>>1291189
>Yes, that's the exact violation of the 1st amendment that I'm referring to
Well, you're factually incorrect. The FBI sending accounts to Twitter for them to review and enforce against if they want has nothing to do with the first amendment. First amendment prohibits congress from establishing LAWS against speech. Getting banned from Twitter is not a legal enforcement. It has nothing to do with the first amendment. You have no clue what you're talking about.

>Attempting to censor speech that is clearly protected under the 1st amendment.
Incorrect. There is no constitutionally protected right to a Twitter account.';

'>>1291175
It can, in fact, do these things. Banning people is an exercise of a company's free speech rights. They can ask a company to ban someone just as they can ask them to say certain things and not say certain things.

>>1291177
>I forgot to mention that the government isn't just making these requests, they're also paying money to Facebook and Twitter, etc. simply for having this cozy relationship.
Paying companies to remove posts would be illegal, if you can find evidence of a quid pro quo in this regard, as opposed to the government simply paying companies to build software (for example, if Google gets paid the exact same amount to build spying backdoors into Gmail as Twitter does for Twitter, then the payments are not related to the removal of speech.)

>>1291181
>All of those people you're talking about were threatened by congress and/or already bought by the feds.
They can whine and cry, but the fact that these people are still around posting literally whatever means that these threats were toothless.

>>1291181
>Why do you think the tiktok ban exists.
Because the Chinese government (and foreign nationals generally) don't have any First Amendment rights according to current case law.';

'>>1291192
>poor russia ((((((((
oh, so you are a russia shill. thanks for admitting';

'>>1291194
>Paying companies to remove posts would be illegal
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/18/fact-check-fbi-gave-3-million-twitter-information-requests/11033845002/
Thanks for playing.';

'>>1291197
>Our rating: False
did you mean to self-own?';

'>>1291195
>poor russia ((((((((
you could be next(Trudeau did it to the truckers)';

'>>1291198
>Getting paid 4 million dollars to give the government access to ban our customers
>Totally not getting paid to assist the government banning posts
Sure, shill.';

'>>1291199
you could be next on the golf cart';

'>>1291197
do you even read the links you post';

'>>1291119
trump did nothing wrong. jews are going after him because he actually ran stuff and didn't let unelected jews make all the decisions like obongo and brandon do';

'>>1291200
just read the sources you post next time dumbass. it will be ostensibly less humiliating for you';

'>>1291127
why do you love jews so much?';

'>>1291204
>>1291207
The facts are the facts. Social media companies were/are getting paid millions of dollars to assist the government in violating the 1st amendment, and got caught doing it.';

'>>1291208
why do you want the entire world to wage war against you and firebomb you into oblivion for your failed ideals';

'>>1291200
>can you provide evidence of this thing
>no, but i WILL provide evidence of the opposite thing, then get mad at you for believing it
why not just answer no in the first place';

'>>1291209
yet you have no proof, in fact your own sources proved you're lying';

'>>1291200
So, to review, you have proof that the government gave Twitter money, a thing that the government does with all companies to compensate them for man-hours spent on information requests. You have absolutely zero proof that this money was done for the purpose of incentivizing them to ban accounts. This is just your gut feeling you're giving us - a gut feeling that, logically, doesn't even make any fucking sense. Twitter, a $41 billion dollar company, was willing to risk absolute economic ruin and a complete PR embarrassment by cooperating in a scheme to help the government ban accounts - and the amount they were willing to risk their entire company for was $4 million dollars? This pathetically small amount that they probably spend more on catering every year? Not only do you not have any evidence for your conspiracy, even intuitively its retarded.';

'>>1291194
>They can whine and cry, but the fact that these people are still around posting literally whatever means that these threats were toothless.
Or it means that they bent the knee to the most powerful nation on the planet.
>Because the Chinese government (and foreign nationals generally) don't have any First Amendment rights according to current case law.
Tiktok is an American company. It began in the United States.';

'>>1291147
>Maybe try winning New York next time?
setting aside everyone in NYC is a straight up retard who can't think on their own and always vote for whoever TV says for them to, you do know NYC elections are rigged right? they got caught rigging the mayor election against adams and they famously have never had legitimate elections in NYC due to tammany hall, but you know, you aren't American so you don't know US history';

'>>1291210
Are you saying the jews control all the militaries in the world and will firebomb anyone who is against them controlling the banks and doing a genocide?';

'>>1291215
did they just tell you to repeat "tammany hall" over and over without giving you any supplemental info? the shills here are fucking bottom shelf';

'>>1291216
Go clean your room, schizo poster. We're having an actual conversation here.';

'>>1291213
>So, to review, you have proof that the government gave Twitter money
Hell they aren't just getting straight cash money; they're also getting juicy government protection from being shut down. Social media competitors get shut down left and right for having "bad content" on their sites.

I guess Tiktok wasn't selling Uncle Sam enough access, and now it's banned by Congress. Total coincidence though.';

'>>1291195
They're US citizens anon.

You don't get to censor people and/or steal their property without due process. That's illegal.';

'>>1291214
>Or it means that they bent the knee to the most powerful nation on the planet.
They certainly comply with laws and subpoenas from the United States of America, if that's what you mean.

>>1291219
>Social media competitors get shut down left and right for having "bad content" on their sites.
That's illegal, unless it's child pornography or sex trafficking, which Congress carved out an exception for.';

'>>1291219
you faggots are really a joke';

'>>1291219
>Hell they aren't just getting straight cash money
But you can't provide a single piece of evidence that they received any money to ban accounts.

>they're also getting juicy government protection from being shut down
So you can't provide any evidence of your conspiracy theory and now that you've been cornered you've pivoted to a completely different conspiracy theory you have no evidence of.

>Social media competitors get shut down left and right for having "bad content" on their sites.
Name a few. Name a couple competitors to Twitter that were shut down by the government for having bad content?

>I guess Tiktok wasn't selling Uncle Sam enough access, and now it's banned by Congress.
Yet a third conspiracy theory you have no evidence for.

>Total coincidence though.
The famous last words of every conspiracy retard - "I have no evidence but I FEEL really strongly about this thing so I'm just gonna believe it".';

'>>1291221
>They certainly comply with laws and subpoenas from the United States of America, if that's what you mean.
"Remove this shit or we will get you" isn't an ask.
Congress dragging Zuck in to scream at him over disinformation isn't an ask.';

'>>1291225
>"Remove this shit or we will get you" isn't an ask.
And yet tons of people ignore this "ask" and nothing bad happens to them, proving it is in fact an ask.';

'>>1291217
you clearly don't know what tammany hall is
>>1291218
you sure are seething and have no argument JIDF';

'>>1291225
still no proof of anything you're telling us, huh';

'>>1291227
adults are talking anon. the kiddy table is over there';

'>>1291226
>And yet tons of people ignore this "ask" and nothing bad happens to them
Bro you're retarded. They literally threatened whistleblowers for disclosing the fact that Congress was using twitter to censor people.';

'>>1291230
you just gave up on having sources?';

'>>1291221
>That's illegal, unless it's child pornography or sex trafficking, which Congress carved out an exception for.
No it isn't dumbass. They perform takedowns for pirated content and all kinds of other shit. Probably uploaded by the FBI themselves, just like 99% of the CP on the internet.

There's a huge number of companies that have been shut down on this pretense. But big brother Facebook is safe, because Zuckerfuck has a real cozy relationship with the fourth branch of government.';

'>>1291224
>But you can't provide a single piece of evidence that they received any money
But I already posted that. 4 million dollars annually for Twitter alone.>>1291224
>Name a few. Name a couple competitors to Twitter that were shut down by the government for having bad content?
Divx, Tiktok, GOM player - just three off the top of my head.>>1291224
>Yet a third conspiracy theory you have no evidence for.
I guess you didn't hear about the tiktok ban? Try reading some news.';

'>>1291230
>They literally threatened whistleblowers for disclosing the fact that Congress was using twitter to censor people.
[citation required]';

'>>1291234
dishonest/10';

'>>1291229
again, not an argument JIDF. And we both know you are JDIF. even fucking reddit knows about JIDF';

'>>1291237
so you are a redditor like we all knew';

'>>1291234
>But I already posted that. 4 million dollars annually for Twitter alone
So you can prove that the FBI gave Twitter money. You have zero proof that this money was in exchange for banning accounts. The Twitter files, in fact, completely refute your claim because Twitter declined enforcement action on 90%+ of the accounts the FBI sent to them. So, according to you, the FBI paid $4 million dollars for them to ban the accounts, Twitter said no and then nothing happened. Is that really the conspiracy hill you wanna die on?

>Divx, Tiktok, GOM player - just three off the top of my head
You're actually pathetic. Did you not bother reading any of these examples? The government didn't shut any of these down. GOM player is still around and DIVX sold their assets to another company. Neither of these are even social media companies either. What the fuck are you even talking about?

>I guess you didn't hear about the tiktok ban? Try reading some news.
Do you have any evidence that the TikTok ban was enacted because TikTok refused to give the U.S. government surveillance/information access? Did you read that in the news anywhere or did you just pull this out of your ass like the rest of your worldview?';

'>>1291230
>They literally threatened whistleblowers for disclosing the fact that Congress was using twitter to censor people.
Employees of the government do not have First Amendment rights when it comes to disclosing the nature of their work. They do have whistler-related rights granted to them by law, but they don't have the First Amendment right to talk about their work. Private individuals and corporations do.

>>1291232
If you host copyrighted material you can be sued for copyright infringement, but in general this doesn't impinge on First Amendment rights because you have no First Amendment right to distribute other people's copyrighted work, and there's generally no liability for the platform for hosting the content.

>>1291234
>Divx, Tiktok, GOM player
Divx and GOM player aren't, as far as I can tell, content hosting platforms.';

'>>1291235
Matt Taibbi deposition.';

'>>1291240
>Divx and GOM player aren't, as far as I can tell, content hosting platforms.
Yeah, not any more. That's my point, dumbass. They used to be platforms anyone could upload content to, just like fucking youtube.>>1291240
>If you host copyrighted material you can be sued for copyright infringement
People post copyrighted material on youtube literally every fucking day, but youtube doesn't get shut down for some reason, does it retard?';

'>>1291242
>They used to be platforms anyone could upload content to, just like fucking youtube.
They were not.

>People post copyrighted material on youtube literally every fucking day, but youtube doesn't get shut down for some reason, does it retard?
Platforms which comply with DMCA are generally immune from copyright-related suit.';

'>>1291168
>Oh so now your pivoting from percentage rates to absolute counts.
No. I'm not. The % of Zionists who are Evangelical conservatives is far FAR higher than the % that are Jews.

You're just bad at math. Didn't think I'd have to spell out for you. This conversation in the first place started because someone thought I was a Jew cause they thought I was a Zionist, you dumb motherfucker. The average Zionist isn't a fucking Jew.

Fuck's sake.';

'>>1291241
that crock of bullshit? really?';

'>>1291245
>Platforms which comply with DMCA are generally immune from copyright-related suit.
And who decides who's complying?';

'>>1291240
>Employees of the government do not have First Amendment rights when it comes to disclosing the nature of their work.
These were people working for the private company twitter.';

'>>1291241
"Matt Taibbi deposition" is not a source. Cite some actual evidence.';

'>>1291251
>testifying in front of congress under oath isn't evidence
Okay.';

'>>1291248
>And who decides who's complying?
The copyright holder may sue them in civil court, in which case the outcome of the lawsuit will determine compliance.';

'>>1291238
nope, but you sure are JIDF';

'>>1291252
>https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/journalist-threatened-with-perjury-charges-by-member-of-congress-after-testimony/

and of course after being threatened with legal action for lying he acted like a victim, so nothing even happened';

'>>1291245
>They were not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DivX,_LLC
>Stage 6 was a user-generated content site run by DivX, Inc. that was similar to YouTube but that allowed for uploading and viewing of high-definition video.
Get bent faggot. GOM player was the same way, but it's english wiki doesn't have shit on it because it's a south korean company.';

'>>1291252
>Okay.
Did you pass the 7th grade? Are you familiar with what sourcing is? Post evidence, anon. Post a link to the actual information you're sourcing. If I write a paper about sharks I can't write "Google" as my source. That isn't a source. Jesus, what dogshit public school system shit you out?';

'>>1291249
Which whistleblower, and who made this threat?';

'>>1291253
Oh, so all those FBI DMCA violation warnings about website takedowns aren't real? You think only private lawsuits apply, even though pirating content is a criminal act? Fucking retards in this thread.';

'>>1291255
>congresswoman threatens a member of the press for speaking the truth about censorship campaign
Okay.
>>1291257
>the congressional record isn't a source
>CSPAN doesn't exist
Alright.';

'>>1291260
>lying is speaking the truth
you're too far gone';

'>>1291260
>"I am making a specific claim about an event that happened"
>"Ok, can you provide evidence of your specific claim?"
>"CSPAN. Congress."

Ok. I give up. You're actually fucking retarded.';

'>>1291256
So, not DivX. Thanks for playing. Maybe one day I'll tell you "Microsoft" went out of business because Groove Music did. And they went out of business because they were operating at a loss, the same way YouTube did years while leeching off Google.

>Get bent faggot. GOM player was the same way, but it's english wiki doesn't have shit on it because it's a south korean company.
GOM TV only really did esports and they sold the business to Afreeca.';

'>>1291076
>Conservatives are buttmad about US aiding Israel
No, only /pol/tards. >90% of conservatives are sheep that worship Israel and think we don't send them enough money.';

'>>1291270
>Claims Divx wasn't a video hosting site
>Gets proved wrong
>Still claims victory
Shill detected. I'm going to bed, have fun trying to convince the sheep.';

'>>1291036
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jewish-palestinian-students-columbia-university-accuse-school-official-rcna148995
Just linking this to gloat, but the suits are already filed.
>A class action lawsuit filed Monday in the Southern District of New York accuses the university of violating safety protocols by allowing "extremist protesters" to intimidate Jewish students and “push them off campus” because of safety concerns.
>A separate complaint filed Thursday with the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights accuses the university of failing to protect students “who have been the target of extreme anti-Palestinian, anti Arab, and Islamophobic harassment on campus since October 9, 2023.”
I'm sure taxpayers will end up paying for all this somehow, but maybe we'll all get lucky and the colleges will just all declare bankruptcy and shut down instead.';

'>jews don't control the police and universities
>that is why police are arresting people for protesting the jews and the universities are expelling them for protesting the jews';

'>>1291276
>da joooooooz';

'>>1291277
the thread is literally about college students literally protesting the jews';

'>>1291278
>>>
> Anonymous 04/29/24(Mon)20:43:22 No.1291278▶
>>>1291277
>the thread is literally about college students literally protesting the jews
and you're trying to tie that into your global conspiracy';

'>>1291278
no one knows because OP didn't paste the article';

'>>1291014
TRUE';

'>>1291279
>>1291280
you are being disingenuous by pretending this isn't about the jews and that thee reason they are getting punished isn't because the jews control everything. No one got in trouble for protesting the russians';

'>>1291282
the jews don't control everything, you need to figure out a way to increase your locus of control';

'>>1291283
>jews kicking kids out of school for protesting jews
>jews didn't let anti jew valedictorians talk
>jews have cops arrest and attack kids for protesting jews
>some schools straight up have snipers and the nasty girls because people are protesting the jews';

'>>1291274
>Shill detected. I'm going to bed, have fun trying to convince the sheep.
You did succeed in your mission. All of your claims were immediately BTFO'd so to cope you managed to deflect the conversation all the way to people arguing about whether Divx was a hosting website. You are really good at distracting people from the fact that your conspiracy theories hold no merit.';

'>>1291284
police brutality has existed forever but only now are you upset';

'>>1291079
Leftists overwhelmingly support the government in regulating speech, specifically in banning what they deem to be "hate speech". Now the same regulation they called for is, as evidenced by the existence of this fucking thread, being used against them to dismantle their protests, and they don't think it's fair

Well guess what? You reap what you sew';

'>>1291287
>what you sew
it's like you're trying to be a joke';

'>>1291287
>Leftists overwhelmingly support the government in regulating speech, specifically in banning what they deem to be "hate speech"
Can you give an example? Like a source of any kind? Could you link a story about any prominent group of leftists trying to put fourth any kind of hate speech regulations?';

'>>1291286
police brutality against blacks has literally never happened in the history of the USA.
admit the jews own the police and colleges and that its illegal to protest the jews';

'Are you people gonna stay in the US when these dumb kids allow the islamists to impose sharia law?';

'>>1291290
didn't everyone tell you to stop talking';

'>>1291291
The country will split up before that happens';

'>>1291293
or you'll move here';

'>>1291292
nope, only you jidf. the jews control the police and colleges. that is why you can't protest them';

'>>1291295
>da joooz';

'>>1291296
again, the thread is literally about colleges kicking out kids and the cops arresting them for protesting the jews';

'>>1291289
Nta but he's right, over half of democrats support banning hate speech
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/12371-hate-speech';

'According to the always funny 4chan's conspiranoics, the us is controlled by the jews (just because there are a lot of succesful jews). Now lets believe that for a second. Is it so bad life in the US? succesful jews were there since 100 years ago. Did the US became such a bad country to live? if you think so, then you are clueless. try living elsewhere. try the country be overrun by arabs, by africans, by latin americans. see how it goes.';

'>>1291297
and in your mind that equates to the jews controlling everything, because you're unintelligent';

'>>1291298
>Nta but he's right, over half of democrats support banning hate speech
A few things. I don't know if you're doing this on purpose but you guys are using leftist and Democrat interchangeably and I don't know why. These are two distinctly different groups of people with two distinctly belief systems that are barely on the same political spectrum. Secondly, this article is from a decade ago. Thirdly, he said "leftists OVERWHELMINGLY support the government regulating speech". 51% is not an overwhelming number nor does a poll of Democrats have anything to do with "leftists". Again, two completely separate group of people. Lastly, if this is the most compelling evidence you have that "leftists" support the government regulating speech - a singular poll from 2015 where 51% of Democrats say they would hypothetically support a hate speech law that doesn't exist that nobody drafted or attempted to pass, you really need to go back to the drawing board of how strongly you're convicted of this position.';

'>>1291299
the jews used to just control the media and banks, now they control all of the money due to the fed and the government
>>1291300
why can you protest anything else, but not the jews?';

'>>1291303
once again, police have arrested protesters for centuries';

'>>1291302
>I don't know if you're doing this on purpose but you guys are using leftist and Democrat interchangeably and I don't know why. These are two distinctly different groups of people with two distinctly belief systems that are barely on the same political spectrum
they are literally the same thing';

'>>1291305
you literally need medication';

'>>1291304
>protest trump, thats cool
>protest russia, thats fine
>protest laws applying to black people, also no problem
>protest people having a right to own guns, keep doing it
>protest laws against baby murder, not a problem
>protest banning men from girls sports, you go girl
>protest the jews, straight to jail';

'>>1291307
you're so obviously not american';

'>>1291305
>they are literally the same thing
If you genuinely don't know the difference between a Democrat and leftist you have absolutely no business trying to engage in a conversation about politics. You don't even have the base, day one knowledge necessary to even understand the words we're all using. Right now you'd fail polysci 101.';

'>>1291306
>don't have an argument
>Demand your opponent take mind altering pharmaceutical chemicals
>>1291308
unlike you and obongo, I am American and have an American birth certificate';

'>>1291309
dems and leftists are the same thing. both are anti gun and pro slavery';

'>>1291311
>don't have an argument
The argument is that you don't know the definitions of any of these words. You've somehow managed to exist at an astronomically remedial level of knowledge despite spending most of your time on the internet.';

'>>1291311
you really are a bot aren't you. if not, you should be outsourced for one';

'>>1291312
>dems and leftists are the same thing. both are anti gun and pro slavery
Ah, shit. Hey there schizo gun nut. You got me. If I would've known it was you I would've just ignored you from the get go. I apologize for the confusion. As you were.';

'>>1291313
they are literally the same thing faggot. dems hate America because they are leftists
>>1291314
you really don't have an argument there do you, jidf';

'>>1291315
I accept your concession that dems and leftists are the same, both hate America, both hate human rights, both want to ban guns and speech and the jews control the police';

'>>1291309
>Right now you'd fail polysci 101.
This isn't polysci 101.

This is the real world. Welcome to it.';

'>>1291318
I'm sorry, I couldn't find an argument anywhere in your post. Care to try again?';

'>>1291315
>>1291314
>>1291313
>>1291309
>>1291306
>>1291302
>demoshit shitlib leftists triggered this hard
Lmao, well done';

'>>1291319
>crying this hard
I'm sorry life doesn't fit into your simple minded academic box, but no one gives a fuck about your A- in polysci101 anon';

'>>1291321
>No argument
Concession accepted. Thanks for playing.';

'>>1291322
>still crying this hard cause no one cares you fucked your polysci101 teacher
Come suck the last word off the tip of my dick, faggot';

'>>1291323
pause';

'>>1291323
This is what you always do when you lose an argument.';

'>>1291325
This is what YOU always do when you lose an argument.

Also: little bit farther down the shaft, the last word is almost yours. Just relax your jaw.';

'>>1291325
i think he's gay';

'>>1291327
>samefagging
Come on now, so close...';

'>>1291327
Whenever he loses an argument he starts spamming shitposts so that he can clog the thread and nobody will notice how thoroughly BTFO'd he got. After 15 or 20 shitposts his shame gets shuffled towards the middle of the thread.';

'>>1291329
>now he's talking to himself
It's okay anon I already finished, you're an obedient little slut';

'what a faggot';

'>>1291331
So much for the tolerant left';

'>>1291330
>>1291328
>>1291326
>>1291323
Imagine posting this much cringe just because you lost an argument';

'>>1291020
were there incidences at this specific protest, or at others? I hope youre not trolling to mean that anti-israel is equivalent to antisemitism';

'>>1291020
>>1291336
I honestly think attributing any antisemitism is giving these college kids too much credit. The vast majority of them have no fucking clue what they're protesting. They heard the words "imperialist" and "colonial settler" and "genocide" and started waving flags because Hasan Piker told them that America is bad. I find it hard to believe there's serious antisemitic sentiment running through a group of people who know absolutely nothing about Israel or the history of the conflict.';

'>>1291092

No, it’s a thing. Also with proof: https://jackpoulson.substack.com/p/inside-the-pro-israel-information

> Within 24 hours of Carey’s LinkedIn post appearing, Alon Ozer, a Miami-based investor, took a screenshot of the post and shared it with a WhatsApp group of more than 300 like-minded investors, tech executives, activists, and at least one senior Israeli government official. Ozer took care to note that Carey worked for Wix.
>
> Oded Hermoni, a tech journalist-turned-venture capitalist, piped up to assure everyone that Batsheva Moshe, Wix’s general manager for Israel and a member of the group chat, had been “on it since Sat[urday] night.”';

'>>1291338
>substack
Get the fuck out of here';

'>>1291339
By investigative journalists who were in the WhatsApp group and provide proof.

That’s as close to proof as possible without being in on the conspiracy yourself.

Get fuck yourself.';

'>>1291342
>investigative journalist
>substack
This is a joke, right?

>Get fuck yourself.
The absolute state of ESLs';

'>>1291343
Donald J. Trump';

'remember if you do a pro jewish protest like BLM you can rape, loot, murder, burn buildings down, assault and eat human flesh and the cops won't stop you and the media will love you
but if you protest the jews you will be kicked out of college, arrested and armed national guardsmen will threaten to shoot you';

'>>1291346
You mean the Boogaloo Riots?';

'>>1291347
there were no boogaloo riots. unless you are claiming racists have access to very, very advanced black face';

'>>1291343
You can’t argue against the evidence so you’re trying to discredit the source. Good luck.';

'>>1291348
chud headcanon is so wild';

'>>1291350
the head canon that the blm riots were done by blm?';

'>protest the jews
>get arrested, get expelled from college, have your bank account frozen
but remember, the jews don't run the government or colleges or the banks or the media';

'>>1291350
isn't it';

'>>1291352
No such thing as "BLM riots" and no one outside of /pol/tards and boomers on facebook use that term. There were George Floyd Protests the Boogaloo Riots, and the 1/6 insurrection. Those are the proper terms.';

'>>1291369
there were no boogaloo riots, only the blm riots. why are you saying all the blacks we saw looting were white supremacists? What about the 2 jews Kyle shot, were they white supremacists?';

'>>1291370
see >>1291350';

'>>1291369
Fucktard headcanon is wild asf.
Why not kill yourself?';

'>>1291371
troon headcanon is so wild';

'They just broke into the university of hammers.';

'>>1290983
>consequences from their actions

closing Israel?';

'>>1290986
We don't care about that, we relish in the just desserts. Dipshits remaining dipshits is hardly surprising but watching them hang themselves by their own retarded petards? Priceless. Lefty movements can't help but Robespierre themselves, because they by habit always miss the forest for the trees.

>>1291092
Your lack of abstract thought and inability to perceive deeper narratives and future scenarios is a symptom of autism, and no one else's problem but your own.';

'>>1291401
>Bringing up Robespierre even though your extremists just tried to start a revolution last inauguration
Is it purposeful lack of self awareness?';

'>>1291335
Imagine losing an argument, getting baited into fishing for the last word by someone joking about making you fellate him on a Somoan spear fishing image board, and still thinking you somehow still won... anything

>>1291369
>No such thing as the "BLM Riots"
Except for, you know, the BLM riots

>>1291416
>still calling a mostly peaceful protest a insurrection or revolution
It seems like the reason leftists get so touchy about Jan 6th is their own version of penis envy- they've never done anything protest-wise that's come even close to frightening the establishment as much as the Jan 6th protests did.

Sucks realizing that as a leftist, you're an establishment lackey. Oh well, shaking your ass for children on the Raytheon Pride Parade float will surely make you feel better, somehow.';

'>>1291020
>protestors being antisemitic
He said the line! It must be true!';

'>>1291372
>>1291375
>>1291421
Chud damage control is highly ineffective';

'>>1291017
>When you give the government carte blanch to make laws deciding what is and isn't hate speech

I didn't read the article as OP was too stupid to copypaste it but I've heard that the issue here isn't the government telling protestors they can't say this or that, but the police ordering them off the street (perfectly correct, as they were blocking the streets) then riding horse mounted cops down the sidewalks and purposely forcing the protestors back into the street, where they were arrested for blocking the street?

But otherwise I agree with you; Lefties screamed for government and corporate censorship to shut down Rightwingers and are now crying about censorship because it's come back around to bite THEM on the ass.';

'>>1291453
There's a difference between getting banned off FB and Twitter for typing "nigger" a thousand times and being expelled from federally funded universities for protesting.
I don't think you know what that difference is, though.';

'>>1291006
Why are they so desperate to rule over me? Is it representative government to be ruled over by people of another tribe or religion?
Why are they so desperate to be the top donors of both political parties, the majority of media corporations, the majority of presidential cabinets, and so on and so forth? Why seek all that power and then call people anti-semites for noticing that they sought that power and responsibility but no accountability? For me the most disgusting thing is that they think they are entitled to my loyalty, or that I owe them something. Why should I spend a single second worrying about them when I can devote that time to worrying about my family and people? It’s pathetic, they’re bleating all day every day about how I’m supposed to care about them or worry about them like I’m their fucking daddy.


Turns out we just don’t really need y’all here.';

'>>1291014
Nah most of these protesters are fucking kids not old bloated millennials.';

'>>1291458
Do you think some of them are republicans?';

'>>1291020
Antisemetism isn't against the law.
>b-but they said..!
Only incitement to imminent violence is against the law, which is determined by several stringent legal tests.

The first amendment forbids the government from interfering with the right to gather and protest. The idea that a protest needs to be peaceful is a meme too, because unless the activities held within the protest specifically violate the law, then the protest itself is defacto legal.

This is the United States of America. You don't need to prove why you should be allowed to protest. You already have that freedom, and anybody who argues otherwise is a tyrant.';

'>>1291356
>>1291356
These are republican positions.
Tom Cotton and Mike Johnson want this. They hate the first amendment.';

'>>1290983
1970, national guard, open fire on rags.
Just DO IT!!!!!!';

'>>1291466
>Antisemetism isn't against the law
The schools have to comply with the civil rights act numb nuts.';

'>>1291580
But not Constitutional rights?
Interesting way to jew there, jew.
Speaking of jews, they're the ones who taught people to protest at colleges with their jewish SDS.
Funny it would backfire and they'd have to imprison people and expel them.';

'>>1291675
jews are white';

'>>1291685
when it's convenient for them.';

'>>1291686
all day long according to the US government';

'>>1291685
The uni had an anti-white week, so no, clearly not.';

'>>1291701
>The uni had an anti-white week
[citation required]';

'>restrict freeze peach and support jews
/pol/yps got a spyop with this one.';

'>>1291704
He meant decade.';

'>>1290985
It's very Noticeable. On the other hand these people still hate you for being a straight white male, they aren't your friends, they're brainwashed leftist hags, communists, and open Muslim Supremacists. Fuck 'em I hope they all catch a police baton, the Holy Land should belong to Christ's Faithful alone.';

'This sure feels good, it's like watching a dickhead who raises a pibble to be mean and vicious so he can threaten people with it, only for it to one day bite his balls off.';

'>>1291113
Biden isn't president in my half of the country. We'll send troops to help Texas, but not to fight in Iran. :)';

'>>1291130
So let me get this straight. The American right wants Jews to have their own country, not here, but far over in the fucking desert. The American left wants them here, instead, in charge, and 99% of Jews donate to the American left party. Hmmm...gonna support the right here, I think. Israel's a good place to keep Jews. Also they can run over Muslims on their bulldozers, which I think is hilarious. Debate me.';

'>>1291797
i take a third position. i think israel shouldn't exist and that tkd is desirable.';

'>>1291798
I could even go without TKD if they'd stop trying to fuck up the world and all moved to Israel.
But they just won't stop fucking up the world.';

'>>1291798
The point I stop supporting this is the exact point where I'm required to pretend Islam is anything but other than evil. Both should be removed. Make Iran Persia Again.';

'>>1291807
True. To be fair though, Muslims don't have a well established history of infecting nations in an attempt to destroy them covertly.';

'>>1290987
More like: Palestinian "authorities" have bombed shit in my country, Israelis didn't. Why would I be sympathetic to their cause?
Also, the fact these Gazans have reproduced themselves like is telling of how low they valued life but also of how fake all the famine and struggle has always been. Even now, under countless bombs, they are not really starving. I have also read they run "in-vitro" fertilization clinics. Now tell me if this isn't an unnecessary service in an overpopulated strip of land.
I condemn the violence but have no idea why I should feel a connection to the Palestinians.';

'>>1291820
>I condemn the violence but have no idea why I should feel a connection to the Palestinians.
Because their treatment is a symptom of a greater problem in the western world.
Israel's MO is to take any kind of slight against her people and use it to extort resources/land/wealth in response, no matter how egregious.
These people target citizens in western countries the same way too. You might not get bombed for criticizing Israel, but you will be robbed of your ability to feed yourself and live a normal life.
Our leaders are compromised in this same way too. JFK, Biden and Trump all slavishly worship the state of Israel and have no interest in protecting our right to free speech from hostile actors.
Woke progressives are obviously retarded, but they are going to become victims in short order. So are conservatives who refuse to follow subversive neocons like Shapiro.
System's fucked.';

'>>1291820
And the award for most jewish post goes to...';

'>>1291821
>Israel's MO is to take any kind of slight against her people and use it to extort resources/land/wealth in response, no matter how egregious.
America should start doing that. Imagine if every time France slighted us we took some of their nicer beaches.';

'>>1291828
Well, Canada would be more feasible.
But if we took a section of land for every shitty Canadian Redditard's opinion, we'd have to kill or relocate the Canadians, and their tens of millions of imported Indians.';

'>>1291820
kek, this is why we need flags.
I say we just test biological weapons on israel and palistine';

'>>1291797
You didn't get it straight, the American right wants Jews to have their own country, have Americans pay for the defense of that country, and have some Jews here in the states in high positions. I have never seen a GOP politician calling for expulsion of Jews to Israel.';

'>>1291299
Well the country has been overrun with them, thanks to Hart-Cellar.
You’re not American, you don’t know anything.
You argue like a woman with brain damage, which is how I know you’re Jewish.';

'>>1292076
jews are white';

'>>1292087
lol no, the jews founded the NAACP. they are coloreds';

'the jews did this';

'>Americans a few years ago:
>FREE HONG KONG
>POLICE BRUTALITY ON PROTESTING STUDENTS
>SUPPRESSION OF CIVIL LIBERTY

>Americans now:
>these students are being so heckin antisemitic let the based cops beat some sense into them';

'>>1292381
They're "protesting" by supporting literal terrorists that want to destroy America.';

'>>1292694
Which was the side that don't want to destroy America again? Oh that's right neither of them.';

'>>1291832
Just deport them to Paris.';

'>>1291106
God damn you got BTFO
>stop embarrassjng yoursel
peak irony itt';

'>>1291109
There hasn't been a word invented yet that describes entirely what is wrong with you.';