This girl is amazing. Only 14 years old, and some of the most hilarious and articulate political/social commentary I've ever seen.

As we all knew, banning Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, and Gavin McInnes was not enough. They now want to ban everyone who thinks like them -- using the ruse of calling conservative speech "hate speech".

Our communist overlords are really scared of this girl, and freaking out to have her silenced. They want her banned now. They even claim she is "recruiting teenage extremists". And here is another smear article alleging that she "spreads hate" (lol). All for the "crime" of wrongthink -- eg, disagreeing with Leftist ideology, making fun of leftists, criticizing Islam, etc.

She has over 900,000 subscribers on YouTube. YouTube just recently took down her video below criticizing Islam. They disabled comments on all her videos.

Check her out before the Leftist thought police send her down the memory hole



Her YouTube channel: soph

Her Twitter: sewer nugget

Just so I can make sure I understand, you're saying the following doesn't "spread hate?"

Quote:

---

Soph's scripts, which she says she writes with a collaborator, are familiar: a mix of hatred toward Muslims, anti-black racism, Byzantine fearmongering about pedophilia, tissue-thin incel evolutionary psychology, and reflexive misanthropy that could have been copied and pasted from a thousand different 4chan posts. Of course, it's all presented in the terminally ironic style popularized by boundary-pushing comedy groups like the influential Million Dollar Extreme and adopted of late by white supremacist mass shooters in Christchurch and San Diego.

(Soph is even more explicitly hateful on Discord, the gaming chat app, where she recently admitted to writing under the username "lutenant ******" that she hoped for"A Hitler for Muslims" to "gas them all.")

---

statefan91 said:

---

Just so I can make sure I understand, you're saying the following doesn't "spread hate?"

Quote:

---

Soph's scripts, which she says she writes with a collaborator, are familiar: a mix of hatred toward Muslims, anti-black racism, Byzantine fearmongering about pedophilia, tissue-thin incel evolutionary psychology, and reflexive misanthropy that could have been copied and pasted from a thousand different 4chan posts. Of course, it's all presented in the terminally ironic style popularized by boundary-pushing comedy groups like the influential Million Dollar Extreme and adopted of late by white supremacist mass shooters in Christchurch and San Diego.

(Soph is even more explicitly hateful on Discord, the gaming chat app, where she recently admitted to writing under the username "lutenant ******" that she hoped for"A Hitler for Muslims" to "gas them all.")

---

---

Everyone hates. It's just a matter of what one hates.

Many leftists hate Christians, the unborn, and God.

God hates the wicked.

Referring to speech as "hate speech" is just a commie/Leftist ruse to attempt to silence conservatives. It is only applied to conservative speech.

Also, I haven't seen anything from her channel that is "anti-black racism". That is a misrepresentation of what she says in her videos, from what I've seen. Anti-islam? Absolutely. Since when can a religion not be criticized?

Yeah, I'd say "gas them all" is hate speech. Thoughts and prayers to her for losing followers, very sad.

PackBacker07 said:

---

Yeah, I'd say "gas them all" is hate speech. Thoughts and prayers to her for losing followers, very sad.

---

But arguing for the murder of unborn children (abortion) is fine, right?

How do leftists get to pretend to have some "moral high ground"? You don't.

And leftists certainly don't get to decide what speech is allowed in our society, and shut down conservatives, Christians, and everyone else they disagree with.

Corporations can decide what they want on their platform and that has nothing to do with free speech so...

statefan91 said:

---

Corporations can decide what they want on their platform and that has nothing to do with free speech so...

---

But private companies can't decide not to bake a cake for homosexuals. Double standards...

The Big Tech companies are effectively arms of the government. The CIA was involved in founding Google.

What's next...AT@T can deny conservatives phone service because they don't like their views? How about the power company?

GuerrillaPack said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

Yeah, I'd say "gas them all" is hate speech. Thoughts and prayers to her for losing followers, very sad.

---

But arguing for the murder of unborn children (abortion) is fine, right?

How do leftists get to pretend to have some "moral high ground"? You don't.

And leftists certainly don't get to decide what speech is allowed in our society, and shut down conservatives, Christians, and everyone else they disagree with.

---

"GAS THEM ALL" is hate speech. That is not a political talking point - left, right, liberal, conservative, whatever. The First Amendment says you have the right of free speech, but free speech is not without consequence. That's the point you aren't getting. When your free speech infringes on others, consequences follow. I won't touch your abortion point because it has absolutely nothing to do with this person getting banned from social media.

PackBacker07 said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

Yeah, I'd say "gas them all" is hate speech. Thoughts and prayers to her for losing followers, very sad.

---

But arguing for the murder of unborn children (abortion) is fine, right?

How do leftists get to pretend to have some "moral high ground"? You don't.

And leftists certainly don't get to decide what speech is allowed in our society, and shut down conservatives, Christians, and everyone else they disagree with.

---

"GAS THEM ALL" is hate speech. That is not a political talking point - left, right, liberal, conservative, whatever. The First Amendment says you have the right of free speech, but free speech is not withiit consequence. That's the point you aren't getting. When your free speech infringes on others, consequences follow. I won't touch your abortion point because it has absolutely nothing to do with this person getting banned from social media.

---

"hate speech" is a meaningless phrase, used as a trick to only censor conservatives.

Leftists spew their hatred of conservatives, Christians, and Trump supporters with Impunity. As they have the right to do. We all have the freedom of speech to express our hatred of whatever we want.

She hasn't infringed anything. Other than hurting the feelings of muslims and commie leftists.

I don't believe in censoring anyone, but Leftists are the ones actually hurting people when they campaign and call for the mass murder of unborn children --which has led to the murders of tens of millions of unborn children.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Corporations can decide what they want on their platform and that has nothing to do with free speech so...

---

But private companies can't decide not to bake a cake for homosexuals. Double standards...

The Big Tech companies are effectively arms of the government. The CIA was involved in founding Google.

What's next...AT@T can deny conservatives phone service because they don't like their views? How about the power company?

---

1) I believe the Supreme Court sided with the bakery, so what is the point here? You just defeated your own argument.

2) Big Tech companies are currently under intense scrutiny from the federal government and in fact, there is a growing movement within government to break them up.

3) No, but I believe they would deny you service if you said you would gas all AT&T employees. In fact, I believe that would be treated as a death threat, punishable by law.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

Yeah, I'd say "gas them all" is hate speech. Thoughts and prayers to her for losing followers, very sad.

---

But arguing for the murder of unborn children (abortion) is fine, right?

How do leftists get to pretend to have some "moral high ground"? You don't.

And leftists certainly don't get to decide what speech is allowed in our society, and shut down conservatives, Christians, and everyone else they disagree with.

---

"GAS THEM ALL" is hate speech. That is not a political talking point - left, right, liberal, conservative, whatever. The First Amendment says you have the right of free speech, but free speech is not withiit consequence. That's the point you aren't getting. When your free speech infringes on others, consequences follow. I won't touch your abortion point because it has absolutely nothing to do with this person getting banned from social media.

---

"hate speech" is a meaningless phrase, used as a trick to only censor conservatives.

She hasn't infringed anything. Other than hurting the feelings of muslims and commie leftists.

I don't believe in censoring anyone, but Leftists are the ones actually hurting people when they campaign and call for the mass murder of unborn children --which has led to the murders of tens of millions of unborn children.

---

Nice swerve, but no answers.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Corporations can decide what they want on their platform and that has nothing to do with free speech so...

---

But private companies can't decide not to bake a cake for homosexuals. Double standards...

The Big Tech companies are effectively arms of the government. The CIA was involved in founding Google.

What's next...AT@T can deny conservatives phone service because they don't like their views? How about the power company?

---

You're conflating completely different things.

'Hate speech' doesn't exist in a legal sense due to the impossibility of setting a clear legal standard on what is and is not hate speech. That does not mean that a private platform can't remove her based on violating its terms of service. While big tech has had problems consistently applying their rules to conservatives and liberals, you are using the absolute worst example to make your point.

The supreme court sided with the baker. A private business could deny service to conservatives because political affiliation is not a protected class. A publically regulated utility could now.

Stop mixing and matching your arguments (and sprinkling on a little Satan), and maybe people will take you more seriously

Yes, I understand that the SC sided with the baker, and that being a Sodomite is considered a "protected class", per insane laws passed by the Left.

The point in bringing all that up is the massive double standard. Leftists want to ban conservative speech (using "private companies"), but then use laws to prevent companies from discriminating against Those with leftist views. They pass laws making themselves the protected class, and take actions to consider conservatives as villains whose speech is only "hate speech" that must be banned.

I don't agree with some wording and terminology but I'll be one to give Guerrilla credit on this. There is a push to silence what the left doesn't agree with. I also agree that businesses should have the right to do whatever they want with their business (which they don't). I also don't believe that there is anything as hate speech. Speech is speech, you determine how you interpret and react to it.

WHY DO YOU KEEP CHANGING YOUR PICTURE?

PackDaddy said:

---

I don't agree with some wording and terminology but I'll be one to give Guerrilla credit on this. There is a push to silence what the left doesn't agree with. I also agree that businesses should have the right to do whatever they want with their business (which they don't). I also don't believe that there is anything as hate speech. Speech is speech, you determine how you interpret and react to it.

---

We can debate the silencing of political voices unequally by tech and media without propping up the worst of the right like Guerillapack does

metcalfmafia said:

---

WHY DO YOU KEEP CHANGING YOUR PICTURE?

---

No particular reason. I guess because it's a way to express more aspects of my personality -- e.g., I'm not just an NC State fan...but also an Alex Jones fan, Clint Eastwood fan, whatever

IseWolf22 said:

---

PackDaddy said:

---

I don't agree with some wording and terminology but I'll be one to give Guerrilla credit on this. There is a push to silence what the left doesn't agree with. I also agree that businesses should have the right to do whatever they want with their business (which they don't). I also don't believe that there is anything as hate speech. Speech is speech, you determine how you interpret and react to it.

---

We can debate the silencing of political voices unequally by tech and media without propping up the worst of the right like Guerillapack does

---

If I was trying to "prop up the worst", then wouldn't the Left consider that to be someone like David Duke? And yet he has not been banned from TouTube, twitter, and other social media. Facebook did just ban Louis Farrakhan, though, who is like the Leftist version of Duke.

The reason I'm discussing Alex Jones and now this 14 year old girl "soph" is because they are the ones being targeted by the Left to be censored. And we should ask ourselves why that is the case. What is so "dangerous" about what these people are saying that the Left is so scared of, enough to deny them freedom of speech?

GuerrillaPack said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

PackDaddy said:

---

I don't agree with some wording and terminology but I'll be one to give Guerrilla credit on this. There is a push to silence what the left doesn't agree with. I also agree that businesses should have the right to do whatever they want with their business (which they don't). I also don't believe that there is anything as hate speech. Speech is speech, you determine how you interpret and react to it.

---

We can debate the silencing of political voices unequally by tech and media without propping up the worst of the right like Guerillapack does

---

If I was trying to "prop up the worst", then wouldn't the Left consider that to be someone like David Duke? And yet he has not been banned from TouTube, twitter, and other social media. Facebook did just ban Louis Farrakhan, though, who is like the Leftist version of Duke.

The reason I'm discussing Alex Jones and now this 14 year old girl "soph" is because they are the ones being targeted by the Left to be censored. And we should ask ourselves why that is the case. What is so "dangerous" about what these people are saying that the Left is so scared of, enough to deny them freedom of speech?

---

With Alex Jones I assume some of it was that he was using his platform to drive conspiracy theories that resulted in the harassment of innocent people. It seems like these platforms recognized that and decided they didn't want to be a part of it and that's their prerogative.

I'm not sure why you keep talking about the girl you mentioned as a 14 year old girl. Is it because a 14 year old shouldn't be taken seriously due to their age?

statefan91 said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

PackDaddy said:

---

I don't agree with some wording and terminology but I'll be one to give Guerrilla credit on this. There is a push to silence what the left doesn't agree with. I also agree that businesses should have the right to do whatever they want with their business (which they don't). I also don't believe that there is anything as hate speech. Speech is speech, you determine how you interpret and react to it.

---

We can debate the silencing of political voices unequally by tech and media without propping up the worst of the right like Guerillapack does

---

If I was trying to "prop up the worst", then wouldn't the Left consider that to be someone like David Duke? And yet he has not been banned from TouTube, twitter, and other social media. Facebook did just ban Louis Farrakhan, though, who is like the Leftist version of Duke.

The reason I'm discussing Alex Jones and now this 14 year old girl "soph" is because they are the ones being targeted by the Left to be censored. And we should ask ourselves why that is the case. What is so "dangerous" about what these people are saying that the Left is so scared of, enough to deny them freedom of speech?

---

With Alex Jones I assume some of it was that he was using his platform to drive conspiracy theories that resulted in the harassment of innocent people. It seems like these platforms recognized that and decided they didn't want to be a part of it and that's their prerogative.

I'm not sure why you keep talking about the girl you mentioned as a 14 year old girl. Is it because a 14 year old shouldn't be taken seriously due to their age?

---

Alex Jones expressed his opinion that Sandy Hook was a staged psyop. He never called for anyone associated with Sandy Hook to be harassed.

If you want to talk about harassment, then what about Antifa? The whole purpose of Antifa is to be an organized gang of communist street thugs who go out and commit violence and harass and intimidate people. But Antifa groups are not banned from the Big Tech social media sites. Why not? Obviously, because Leftist-run Big Tech is allied with Antifa. Antifa is part of the Establishment.

Leftists on social media, by the thousands daily, call for violence and harassment of Trump supporters, which is leading to lots of real world violence and harassment. But these leftists are never censored.

TBD on what Alex Jones did or didn't do as there is a lawsuit proceeding that will dig into that: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/12/us/alex-jones-infowars-lawsuit.html

Can you help me understand who the leftist controlled big tech companies are and how they are leftist controlled? What is your definition of leftist?

Also do you have comments on the 14 year old you mentioned and why we shouldn't be concerned about someone openly hoping for all Muslims to be gassed?

statefan91 said:

---

Also do you have comments on the 14 year old you mentioned and why we shouldn't be concerned about someone openly hoping for all Muslims to be gassed?

---

You can be concerned all you want. But her speech is protected free speech -- per the Supreme Court, which has ruled that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".

And interesting that the same people feigning outrage over a "gas them all" comment are the same people who defend REAL WORLD mass murder of Germans and Japanese in another recent thread, including indiscriminate mass murder of women and children via fire-bombing of cities.

What she said is no more concerning, on its face, than leftists who argue for the killing of unborn children via abortion -- who do that daily on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. It is arguably much more concerning with Leftists campaigning and arguing for abortion, because this is actually resulting in millions of murders being carried out in real life.

Do you really think that this girl's speech is going to result in "all muslims being gassed"? Not gonna happen.

Do you think that leftists daily campaigning and arguing for the "right" to murder unborn children will result in millions of unborn children being murdered? Yes, it will.

statefan91 said:

---

TBD on what Alex Jones did or didn't do as there is a lawsuit proceeding that will dig into that: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/12/us/alex-jones-infowars-lawsuit.html

Can you help me understand who the leftist controlled big tech companies are and how they are leftist controlled? What is your definition of leftist?

---

I've listened to Alex Jones for years. He never called for the harassment of anyone associated with Sandy Hook. Here is the gist of what Alex Jones said about Sandy Hook:

As for Big Tech, it's obvious that Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twitter are controlled by Leftists, are pushing a Leftist agenda, and are primarily censoring conservatives. Are you really trying to deny that?

I'm asking for concrete examples. I'm also asking for what your definition of "leftist" is. I'd also remind you that the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Commenting just so I can keep up with the blabbering going on here. Not going to feed a certain person but just know, when a certain person has no more "answers" they will stop typing and start a brand new thread about some more stuff to see who they can get riled up.

statefan91 said:

---

I'm asking for concrete examples. I'm also asking for what your definition of "leftist" is. I'd also remind you that the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

---

Concrete examples of what exactly?

My definition of leftist is the basically the same as yours, I bet. Those who support a political and social philosophy that is rooted in Marxism/socialism -- and therefore traditionally are hostile to Christianity (as was Marx) and support anti-Christian policies (eg, homosexuality, abortion, transgenderism, theory of evolution), support big government...and now openly support dis-empowering the individual (by abolishing freedom of speech and the right to own firearms), so as to cement the power dominance of the state/government.

Of course I know that the 1st Amendment only prevents the government from censorship. But the CONCEPT of freedom of speech can apply to other institutions/companies/etc outside of the government. This crusade by the leftist-controlled Big Tech companies to censor conservatives proves that leftist elites do not support freedom of speech on their internet platforms. And leftist-dominated universities demonstrate this same hostility to freedom of speech, and have been censoring conservatives on college campuses for many years.

So...if leftists of the same ideological philosophy get into power in sufficient numbers in the government, they will move to pass laws (in Congress, etc) that restrict freedom of speech. Leftist governments in many European nations have already passed such laws -- eg, "hate speech" laws that make it a crime to criticize islam, mass immigration, etc.

And RWW26, I can provide "answers" all day. At some point though, it get's old responding to the same question/argument over and over (as in the WW2 thread). The person who responds last has not necessarily "won" the argument.

Who are the conservatives that are being silenced?

statefan91 said:

---

Who are the conservatives that are being silenced?

---

There's a lot of anecdotal stories on conservative sites alleging posts were removed for conservative content or accounts were banned. However there is currently no good data to try and show this. The most recent story I saw relates to an AOC parody account that was banned. The comparison was made to the account 'Devin Nune's Cow' which is a parody of Devin Nunes and which Twitter refuses to remove even after Nunes sued them for libel.

There are enough stories that I tend to believe there is some bias, but not that there is a widespread issue. The problem is that big tech does not have clear guidelines on what is and is not allowed, and that enforcement is done by people. People flag content and reviewers remove it. Social media users in general skew liberal, (particularly Twitter) so users flag conservatives more. Content reviewers have their own biases like all people do.
Generally I oppose these company's enforcement efforts because they are slapdash, inconsistent, and change with the winds of public outcry. But they do have the right to do whatever they want as pricte companies

So what you're saying is that there's not really a coordinated attack from Leftist Big Tech to silence conservative voices. Got it.

statefan91 said:

---

So what you're saying is that there's not really a coordinated attack from Leftist Big Tech to silence conservative voices. Got it.

---

Nope. Human's have biases. Biases work their way into business processes in a myriad of ways. There is no coordinated shadow campaign

GuerrillaPack said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Also do you have comments on the 14 year old you mentioned and why we shouldn't be concerned about someone openly hoping for all Muslims to be gassed?

---

You can be concerned all you want. But her speech is protected free speech -- per the Supreme Court, which has ruled that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".

And interesting that the same people feigning outrage over a "gas them all" comment are the same people who defend REAL WORLD mass murder of Germans and Japanese in another recent thread, including indiscriminate mass murder of women and children via fire-bombing of cities.

What she said is no more concerning, on its face, than leftists who argue for the killing of unborn children via abortion -- who do that daily on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. It is arguably much more concerning with Leftists campaigning and arguing for abortion, because this is actually resulting in millions of murders being carried out in real life.

Do you really think that this girl's speech is going to result in "all muslims being gassed"? Not gonna happen.

Do you think that leftists daily campaigning and arguing for the "right" to murder unborn children will result in millions of unborn children being murdered? Yes, it will.

---

No one was defending the murder of Germans, we were all just wondering what point you were trying to make and why you refused to ever comment on the millions of jews and others slaughtered by the Nazis. Nothing you posted in that thread was shocking or completely unknown. The Soviet's romp through Germany was well documented.

IseWolf22 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

So what you're saying is that there's not really a coordinated attack from Leftist Big Tech to silence conservative voices. Got it.

---

Nope. Human's have biases. Biases work their way into business processes in a myriad of ways. There is no coordinated shadow campaign

---

Ok - so I'm confused about your original post then because the link you had that says communist big tech left or whatever wants to ban this girl from Youtube. I didn't see the word ban mentioned anywhere though, can you clarify?

statefan91 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

So what you're saying is that there's not really a coordinated attack from Leftist Big Tech to silence conservative voices. Got it.

---

Nope. Human's have biases. Biases work their way into business processes in a myriad of ways. There is no coordinated shadow campaign

---

Ok - so I'm confused about your original post then because the link you had that says communist big tech left or whatever wants to ban this girl from Youtube. I didn't see the word ban mentioned anywhere though, can you clarify?

---

Very offended that you've confused me with Guerilla

IseWolf22 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

So what you're saying is that there's not really a coordinated attack from Leftist Big Tech to silence conservative voices. Got it.

---

Nope. Human's have biases. Biases work their way into business processes in a myriad of ways. There is no coordinated shadow campaign

---

Ok - so I'm confused about your original post then because the link you had that says communist big tech left or whatever wants to ban this girl from Youtube. I didn't see the word ban mentioned anywhere though, can you clarify?

---

Very offended that you've confused me with Guerilla

---

LOL - I knew that response didn't look right, whoops.

statefan91 said:

---

Who are the conservatives that are being silenced?

---

statefan91 said:

---

So what you're saying is that there's not really a coordinated attack from Leftist Big Tech to silence conservative voices. Got it.

---

Are you kidding? The level of censorship against conservatives is off the charts. Where do we begin...

Beginning in 2017, Big Tech realized they need to censor conservatives, due to the fact that social media was a big factor in the election of Donald Trump. In the last two years, dozens of prominent ("celebrity") right-wing users have been banned from Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter -- including Alex Jones, Gavin McInnes, Paul Joseph Watson, and Milo Yiannopoulos. Tens of thousands of "regular Joe" conservative and right-wing users have been banned from these platforms. Facebook routinely bans popular pro-Trump fan pages for no legitimate reason. Twitter daily bans hundreds of "alt-right" twitter accounts.

In the past 2-3 years, Google and YouTube have both significantly altered their search algorithms, so that it is much more difficult to find "far right" and "conspiracy theorist" content. The old algorithms accurately showed what was the most popular content -- so that, for example, if you searched for "9/11 lies" the top search results would be "conspiracy theorist" content. Now, when you conduct such a search, the top searches are artificially manipulated to give you pro-Establishment propaganda (eg, CNN videos, etc).

- In August of 2017, YouTube begins putting "controversial" right-wing videos in limited state -- prohibiting sharing the video, commenting on the video, and the video showing up in recommendations.

- In January of 2019, YouTube moves to make conspiracy videos harder to find -- preventing such videos from showing up in recommendations.

- "Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News"