considering we cannot congregate legally,

This is an opportunity, not a hazard.

Every time we congregate, we raise the issue. Because free assembly is lawful and legal the opposition has to resort to 'quesi' legal and illegal means to shut us down. If we conduct enough protests and gatherings of that nature, sooner or later we'll document something that can't really be denied.

Then the overton window slides from "honestly, is the government really illegally suppressing us whites?" to "hey I'm not a racist, but I'm a conservative and it's not right what the government is doing."

The debate moves from is it happening -> to is it right that it is happening and should we allow it?

You could boil it down to the absurd phrase

Remember, if your enemies physically assault you, you win.

Well, in court.

No, maybe not the legal courts, but trump did replace a boatload of them, so maybe.

No, you win in the court of public opinion.

Welcome to clown world.

Luckily it will be erased when we declare war on the sun for shedding light on the bullshit

Only '40s kids will get this.

Did Q predict Amalek? What happens when you order the Amalek Special from Comet Pizza? Did Amalek die trying to put his old mattress in his neighbor’s dumpster? Bonus question: given what we know about Amalek’s activities in 1990, who is Voat’s Angel?

Is @amalek still in jail?

Can I have a two page essay on @Amalek? I've been trying to figure out who he is and what he did ever since I started using Voat.

This comment was linked from this v/SoapboxBanhammer submission by @gabara.

^{Posted automatically (#35118) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.}

Can you confirm it's the 8 chan bot causing the trouble?

did @amalek suck his daddys dick or just his mommas?

Am I Amalek?

Why is @Amalek gay?

whuh?

who are you?

Where is the elsewhere?

SJW Tranny Discord? I feel like that would somehow make it possible to get AIDS via the internet...

Go fuck yourself, Fedcoat.

While you're correct in your assessment of needed actions, I generally try to avoid saying they should be "murdered". It should be legal to kill these subversives and enemies among us.

Thanks brah.

t. evil demon

but nothing you linked meet the place and time specificity that strip first amendment protections from speech

They'll ignore that part while they use the threat of force to push a law unequally.

"We disagree with your interpretation. You're not a lawyer, how would you know."

Just like someone whos not a chef knows nothing of cooking.

And someone whos not an engineer knows nothing of fixing a truck.

And someone whos not a soldier, knows nothing of weapon safety.

It's all a bunch of bullshit from suited apes, and costumed clowns, with credentials that mean nothing, backed by the willingness to physically harm any of us if we dare to disobey at all.

Fuck them and their pretense of a government.

The threat has to be a direct person or direct time, I think.

"At noon on Wednesday, I should shoot every nigger in sight" - not a direct threat against an individual, but gives a time, an imminent threat.

"someone should find that nigger, Martin Luther King Jr, and pour bleach down his asshole" - is a direct threat against an individual. I used a fictional character in this case because Dr Martin Luther King Jr is completely made up. The person pretending to be a doctor was actually named Michael King Jr, and he plagiarized his thesis and should've never received his PhD. Also he choked out whores.... well, that one is kind of good, teaching those degenerates a lesson.

that's the point, the glow niggers go just to the edge.

but nothing you linked meet the place and time specificity that strip first amendment protections from speech. "I hope people I don't like die" and "Someone should kill X" are not statements that run afoul of the law.

That comment in particular is not in violation, I made a comment on here in regards to this but here are the two points that would land us in deep shit:

1. The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
2. The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

As long as these two points aren't crossed things are fine.

I had never heard the term glownigger so thank you for that my good niggerfaggot.

Don't jump to conclusions. Free speech has a lot of opponents who don't work for the government. Reddit or any of the media conglomerates would hire people to make posts like that just for shits and giggles. So would SRS trolls. I'm surprised there aren't even more accounts like that.

(((they))) want their war real soon and they need widespread "far-right" violence to frame it to the rest of the world as "21st century Nazis". Evil doesn't want to destroy America if they can't look like the good guys.

Look at this new "summit.news" and tell me that ain't jews trying to demoralize us and ignite us. guess ((who))) isn't criticized on that site.

You wouldn't be helping to report it. It's like going to a party and being worried it will be shut down because someone brought drugs, then yelling out the window, hey cops, we have drugs in here.

The rule is it is never in your interest to talk to cops. They can only harm you, and they can only harm the site. They aren't going to give the site candy or help it fund raise. Only bad things can happen and all bad things that happen depend on them having information. The less information they have in all forms the fewer bad things happen.

The colonists at concord and lexington were assembled "illegally."

lol.

Well it's extremely doubtful any gov't agencies would be doing this at this time since reading between @PuttInOut 's post, 1) they allowed him to even address this and 2) they're giving us us a clear warning to watch ourselves.

If the gov't were going to take action or had some ulterior motive, we wouldn't know anything until they actually were shutting things down or executing on warrants.

I think the bigger threat are paid shills attempting to do things like that which is very likely. They will walk that fine line and instigate others in here to attempt to take action in the real world which would cause @PuttItOut and the other admins to have to react in the form of "XYZ will be banned".

@PuttItOut 's message is different from what I just mentioned in that he's saying he'll have to enforce removal of posts containing direct threats and actionable call to arms which again, are NOT covered under the 1st amendment in the US.

Wow, you can actually talk like a normal person.

Clown world got them spooked.

@puttitout 1990 style

Thank you, this is my contribution to keeping this place alive and you're correct, the tone of the conversation is taken into consideration.

The fact that @PuttItOut was contacted is not surprising, if you're an oldfag you can see where things are headed based on the type of shitposting that's been going on around here lately. The tone has been less satirical wit/trolling and more feeding into low IQ 'muh feels' ideology.

i am curious as to why the person posting the 'illegal' threats, etc. cannot be held accountable. why is the host (or anyone else) responsible for the idiot that uses the hairdryer in the tub?

I've come to suspect that that is pretty much the purpose of subs like /r/unpopularopinion on Reddit.