Hmm what is your reaction regarding bookstores allowing Holocaust-questioning material to be sold?

Shake’s voice actor is a Jewish man

tard thread only tards bump this thread

>it's another post conflating free speech with the free choice of a bookseller to sell books
What a time to be alive

>muh free speech doesn't stop le consequences meme

You are a fucking little cunt, in the case of America, the entire purpose of free speech is to avoid consequences for said speech, or else it isn't free speech you utter imbecile. If you also restrict the venues of speech from being disseminated you are restricting free speech. Shutting down social media, publishing, selling and gathering is suppression of free speech and if you disagree you are a fucking nazi. Fucking die, you powertripping faggot.

>Shutting down social media, publishing, selling and gathering is suppression of free speech
A specific bookseller making a decision not to sell your book does not infringe you right to free speech, user. Otherwise every shitty would-be author in the world could sue the publishers who refuse to publish their masterpieces, or the booksellers who refuse to sell them. This is pretty simple stuff.

why browse Veeky Forums if you can't read

Afraid you'll have to elaborate m80

I agree that holocaust denialism is stupid but I don't get why people get so emotional and worked up about this historical atrocity in particular. I've certainly never seen a lachrymose hollywood film about the Armenian Genocide.

>inb4 6 million /pol/ explanations
The Turks weren't the clear baddies in a historically recent war in which the west were the clear goodies

nice strawman argument

There's nothing wrong with scepticism towards historical narratives

A bookstore or business is exercising their own 1st Amendment rights by deciding to not sell neo-nazi trash.

The fact that the West were "clear goodies" should also be questioned, given the atrocities they committed during the war

What are you people doing here? I'm telling you, reddit has a great literature subreddit. You would feel much more at home there.

>the entire purpose of free speech is to avoid consequences for said speech

No, the entire purpose of "free" speech is so that THE GOVERNMENT cannot levy consequences for said speech.

Any business or platform has every right, by the lesser-publicized but equally important "freedom of association", to disengage with, silence, or otherwise respond negatively to any type of speech. And there is nothing the government is allowed to do about it.
>that last part is a lie, the government regularly violates freedom of speech and freedom of association when underprivileged classes like Christians use them

reddit has also a bunch of dumb fuck holocaust deniers so maybe we all belong there

Remember that if someone is telling you to believe something and calling you a "denier" if you say you don't, that person is a jew or a shabbos goy mimicking jews.

Since you live in the United States, you are allowed to research the holocaust. When you do so, you will find that yes, the popular understanding of the holocaust is inaccurate, as is the popular understanding of everything from Ancient Rome to the more recent Panama Papers.

What you will also find is that nevertheless, the Nazis did imprison and murder millions of people, primarily Jews (as their own propaganda attests). The murders were sometimes crimes of omission rather than commission (e.g. starvation), but it is well within a rational understanding of ethics to call them murders all the same.

You are not going to find evidence that the holocaust entirely "didn't happen".

That's not true though, and if you actually do your research instead of pretending you have like you are, you will see that many of those deaths came as a result of disease and that the implements supposedly used to kill jews like gas chambers probably didn't even exist and even if they had were not capable of doing what jewish liars later claimed. Jews are dishonest people who we are foolish to trust on anything, especially a victim narrative that we should have had nothing to do with.

Jews don't belong in Europe or any other white nation, and it is not our responsibility to protect them.

No it shouldn't, you faggot.

The tools used to win the war were necessary, the alternative is genocide via shitskin.

I literally don't care, it's easier to stomach than most religious texts.

This post is modern art

Jews are con artists and kabbalists, and you're naive if you accept the 6 million number and believe it was randomly chosen (or accurate).

I mean bookstores can do whatever they want, they’re private businesses. If there’s a real demand for it someone will step in and provide the service.

Yeah, exactly, you are full of shit, freedom of association died with the civil rights act you cunt. There are several court cases which support the conclusion that free speech cannot be restricted by businesses. In the case of a company town prohibiting the dissemination of Christian literature, it was found to be unconstitutional despite them OWNING the streets. This same principle can be applied to social media and other large venues which are necessary for the exercise of free speech in the 21st century. Choke on a faggot cake you runt. If there are "consequences" for "free" speech, then it is not really free is it?

The efficacy of disease in prison camps is another crime of omission by the Nazis, and it falls under the category of the large number of Jews and other prisoners that died simply by starvation or exposure.

This doesn't refute the holocaust, it just refutes the popular conception about roller coasters going into ovens

It doesnt matter if 100000 or 6000000 jews died. The point is that the holocaust as a cultural phenomenon has a paralyzing and demoralizing effect on western societies.

The case you cite (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton) is a non sequitur in this debate. There is no case law saying that a store must stock such and such material or must not stock such and such material.

Until the Supreme Court disagrees (which would be a violation of civil rights, as is their wont), there can be no argument that any businessowner has the full force of individual choice available to him in how he runs his business. He can refuse to sell anyTHING he wants, and in a better world, he might even refuse to sell to anyBODY he wants.

How can it be a "crime of omission" (whatever that means) when it was embargos and such from other nations that caused it? By the way:
>Nazis
This is not a real word and the Germans of this time never referred to themselves as such, so why are you? Because jews did and do to slander these people who didn't want to live around them anymore? That should tell you something, that you are 70 years later using a jewish propaganda term as the standard. Why do you think that is?

The NSDAP made at first minimal efforts and eventually no effort to allocate any resources to the part of the population that they had unilaterally decided to imprison.

Therefore, while they didn't "pull the trigger" as it were, their actions are still culpable for the deaths of those people (most of whom were Jewish by some accident, apparently). Their crime was what they DIDN'T do (a crime of omission), but it all stems from something they DID do: imprison all of those people.

Continue to debate semantics rather than content at the expense of your own position.

At that time and throughout history it was SOP to imprison foreign populations in war time, and the US did it to the Japanese as well. The jews were the main threat in Germany and the main group involved in revolutionary agitation, including a mini bolshevik coup that briefly succeeded. That's why jews were imprisoned, they were not innocent, and shouldn't have been in Europe in the first place.

>The jews were the main threat in Germany
kek

Why didn't the US, England, USSR, France, etc. imprison Jews as well

WILL I LIVE TO SEE MY CHILDREN BE FREE?

Free speech is a social ideal more than a legal right, and it's fair to see corporate censorship as a violation of that ideal. Stop conflating free speech with the 1st amendment.

>stop conflating free speech with the Constitutional Amendment that institutionalizes it as a legal right

you need to read some of orwell's essays boy.
war is hell but that doesn't mean pacifism is correct, even gandhi took a stance on it

Because they were being run by them.

deluded moron gb2 pol

How are we supposed to believe the claim that Jews are running the West when it is actually Freemasons that are running the West?

>even if they are true people shouldn't be allowed to know
WEW.
LAD.

The first amendment provides some speech protections, but it doesn't create an environment where free speech exists. It fails to meaningfully implement the concept in any way. But I guess it's hard to see with all that corporate cock in your mouth.

>getting baited this hard

Jews had been pushing for war with Germany as a fifth column within those countries for years before the war ever started.

It makes it so that THE GOVERNMENT cannot suppress the free speech of the people.

If I were the CEO of a social platform, I have the right to run that platform however I want. I could manually go in and delete posts of people I don't like MYSELF, and it would not be a violation of anyone's ingrained ideological rights, much less their legal ones. You have no "rights" on my platform.

Freemasonry hasn't had the same power it had up until the early 20th century for decades you moron. Why do you think freemasonry and Illuminati bullshit is the subject of several shitty youtube channels that are allowed to stand? Because that's disinfo. You call both a lizard flat earther and an Holocaust denialist conspiracy theorists to imply their claims are of the same nature. Noticing these things is called thinking. Although I'm not an Holocaust denialist myself, I simply think it was overly exaggerated, the fact people go to jail for questioning the narrative is very telling. Many 80 and 90 year olds have gone to prison in Germany for it(that old lady Ursula and recently an old man who was a guard for the Nazis). You've yet to understand the whole mythos of creation of the modern west is based on WW2 and how bad that is.

you're wrong and you're using terms like fifth column in incorrect ways
read any book(not an infographic "redpill")

And if you're a prick and that platform has a monopoly and you're using it to suppress speech and subvert US law then the people also have a right to take it from you and make it a utility.

I'm right and I used the term correctly. You however cannot even use proper grammar and need to read up on the JQ before you weigh in next time.

Best take ITT.

It should have a demoralizing effect. The holocaust is the least bad thing that Western civilizations have done.

Annnnd this is what the first amendment exists to stop. Subversive and violent cryptomarxists like you.

totally dude all those jew-dominated warmongering nations were itching to pick a fight with germany which is why nations like britain were so unprepared for war when it actually happened(i bet you believe that shit about the allies being the aggressors too lmao)

dummy gb2pol

But that was the point from the beginning, which is why we should at the very least be skeptical of the numbers and the jews who have turned the holohoax into a lucrative victim industry that allows them to morally blackmail anyone who questions their authority.

I'm an ethnonationalist, moron.

>It makes it so that THE GOVERNMENT cannot suppress the free speech of the people.
That's a nice speech protection, but it can only mean so much when private entities are capable fully suppressing people. It certainly doesn't mean that free speech exists.
> If I were the CEO of a social platform, I have the right to run that platform however I want. I
That's nice. But if you're platform is prominent enough, you can effectively stop the discourse and prevent free speech from existing in any real way.
>I could manually go in and delete posts of people I don't like MYSELF, and it would not be a violation of anyone's ingrained ideological rights, much less their legal ones. You have no "rights" on my platform.
This is the mistake of viewing free speech as solely a relationship between people and the government: you open society up to all sorts of censorship from powerful entities. Your conception of free speech amounts to nothing more than a corporate discourse. As far as I'm concerned that's not desirable.

You also need to stop being duped by the euphemisms of legal "scholars" . Just because a clase is referred to with the term "free sppech" doesn't mean that it creates an environment conducive to it.

That you don't see the Marxism in your ideology tells the tale to any observers.

But the fact that you don't see it doesn't make it go away. Your worldview is a failure in every sense.

Private entities are not capable of fully suppressing shit. You don't even know what it would MEAN to be fully suppressed.

Again, jews were the main people pushing for war and used their influence in the media to promote it and destroy individuals like Charles Lindbergh. You don't know what you're talking about and need to use proper grammar if you expect to hoodwink anyone into thinking you do.

What in the world are you even talking about? I don't even think you know. Using the state to take over a jewish company suppressing free speech has nothing to do with Marxism, it just goes against your half-baked libertarian ideals that are rooted in fantasy.

let me to show your cognitive dissonance for a third time
if jew dominated nations wanted war with germany, why were they(specifically gave Britain as an example) unprepared for it when it happened? Why did Neville Chamberlain do everything to avert war? You idiot. Read a book.

Ah yes, the jews compelled the poor Austrian man to attack a country after he was told there would be war if he did so

They're more than capable of keeping ideas out of the discourse, and that's close enough. It allows for censorship to occur without the state having to deal with the bad optics of government suppression. Either way it's a win win for that status quo and all it deems acceptable.

>Fire bombing a town without a tactical importance full of women and children refugees is necessary to win a war while the army is already breaking up and your enemy on his knees, because some anglo wanted to destroy the economical enemy for generations
Yes, yes. Good goy.

if one war crime absolves the other side of any wrongdoing then the allies still come out on top lmao

But if he defendeds corporations enough, one will surely grant him a fief of his own.

Hitler proposed peace multiple times. The reason it has been denied weren't because muh juice and human rights, it was because of economical enemies. Which is why the term "made in germany" was even coinded.

The allies butcherd teens and raped civilians just like the reds and only came into play for their own benefit not for the greater good. Germany can at least claim they did it to free their own people. You are delusional.

>6 million is a ludicrous number
You’re aware that isn’t even a large number right? Or are you just horribly ignorant of history.

Instead of preventing the dissemination of "questionable material" that can sway the dumb masses, why not educate the masses so they can discern between truth and lie?

>Rail lines, factories, and communication centers have no tactical importance when trying to get an enemy who knows he cant win to stop fighting, someone who is at this moment still launching rockets at your country

>Yes Mr Adolf, this treaty will surely bring peace for our time
>Just like Munich

You're buying WW2-era propaganda you moron. Why don't you read a book by any contemporary observer? If you did, you'd realise exactly what was going on. Hitler's peace terms meant German dominance on the continent and a guarantee of Britain's empire(if your empire exists by the guarantee of another nation, it does not exist at all). But you don't realise this because you don't read books, you just read the same ben garrison spun out bullshit to fit your dumb worldview. Read Orwell's essays.

>like 20,000 die in an uncontrolled fire during a strategic bombing of a railway and communications hub
>this is morally equivalent to systemic genocide
Brainlets need to go.

user, even Ausschwitz changed theor plaque multiple times and the red cross shortly after the war estimated the deaths at around 250.000 whih mostly died due to thyphus and starvation due to bombing. You don't kill your manifacturies, which the camps were in the first place. An easy work force essential for producing war amunition and similar stuff. Stop watching Hollywood as an educational tool.

>Dresden
>important after beeing island-bombed already and therefore made into a safe heaven due to non existant importance
It was a bombing for revange and out of hate, not due to necessaty. If you would be so honest to aknowledge that your posts could be taken serious.

>An easy work force essential for producing war amunition and similar stuff
read any book about the productionist vs attritrionist debate in the nazi organisation and you realise this is a stupid statement

>You don't kill your manifacturies
Gulags didn't exactly encourage health and longevity among their workers.

>falling for the genocide meme was was around already in the 19the century known as the holocaust and gave the jews a reason to claim palestine
Imagine beeing that historically illiterate.

>citing the fake Red Cross report

why though?

"The figures cited by the author of the booklet are based upon statistics falsely attributed to us, evidently for the purpose of giving them credibility, despite the fact that we never publish information of this kind."
—Françoise Perret, Comité International de la Croix-Rouge, to Jacob Gerwitz, August 22, 1975.

you must be a muslim to have this much of a warped worldview

>the holocaust gave the Jews a reason to claim Palestine
>I don’t know what the Balfour declaration is
/pol/ everyone

Gulags were made to kill the prisoners while working because they didn't work on anythingessential.

KZ on the other hand made necessary parts, even more so as the war continued which is why they gased their cloths regularly against thyphus to not get their workforce decimated.

>Gulags were made to kill the prisoners while working because they didn't work on anythingessential.
Gulags were a huge part of the Soviet economy.

>island-bombed
ESL please, it was literally a case of the allies had not got around to bombing it yet. Do you honestly believe that the city had no industry, military use, or relevance to the outside world?

That has nothing to do with anything. You need to think before you type and stop pretending to be informed, it's not working. You can't even use grammar correctly, get the basics down before you talk.

>jews make nations go to war with germany
>nations are unprepared for war
"this has nothing to do with anything"
run away and protect your worldview little brainlet

>Using all these words to say I'm not going to address user's points, says its irrelevant but does not say why

>the Jews specifically wanted war with Germany
>that’s why Jewish controlled governments sat by and did nothing as Germany annexed half of Europe and openly oppressed their Jewish population
You completely dodged his argument so you wouldn’t have to defend your cognitive dissonance.

It's not an argument, it's a non sequitur. Jews pushing for war internally within Britain need not affect the military's preparedness and in fact does more to make my point about jews being the primary people who wanted war.

so follow the logic
if jews pushed for war in the knowledge that these nations were unprepared then they must have wanted these nations to lose
did they want german supremacy?
your dumb worldview ^

>the Jews were pushing unprepared nations towards war with a country that would annex their nations and liquidate their populations if they lost supports my argument that the Jews were the ones that started the war

Pre-WWII Oswald Mosley had issues with Jews.

>implying the allies weren't war mongering
Nigga