> We live in a globalized world, there's an argument to be had that nationalism in the cheery light you just presented it as is no longer such a good thing. I'm

> We live in a globalized world, there's an argument to be had that nationalism in the cheery light you just presented it as is no longer such a good thing. I'm of the opinion that the very concept of countries is inherently violent, so there's my bias, but I don't want to get into this. Right, nations can only exist as long as they use violence to fight (perceived) threats. > What I do want to get into is all this "why ban one side and not the other", well probably because one side is significantly more violent and is only becoming more agitated? Is that not completely obvious? They're not trying to ban a school of thought, they're trying to prevent terrorist attacks by white men on non-white and immigrant people. As has been literally happening. The most violent parts of the left are responses not home grown hatred, and they're not shooting up places of worship. Go ahead, find the like 2 bad examples of left leaning violence but it doesn't take much to find 10x that from the right. One is not like the other. We want the same and I agree we have a huge problem with right-wing extremism that does not mirror in left-wing extremism (sic). My worry is: how soon until the same people we want to deplatform are the ones in charge of the platform? Get Twitter as an example: It is usually left-leaning and minority Twitter users the ones getting the shit end of the stick. Jack Dorsey is known for being, to say the least, accepting of nazis in his platform. Edit: Again another bunch of downvotes without replies. sigh