4 ms·
This isn’t censorship full stop. What you are advocating for is forcing YouTube to carry content that it doesn’t want to. I also think it’s grotesque to quote
by empath75 7y ago
This isn’t censorship full stop. What you are advocating for is forcing YouTube to carry content that it doesn’t want to.
I also think it’s grotesque to quote an anti nazi poem in defense of nazis.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoI fully and without compromise support the right to free speech of all citizens, including "nazis" or whatever the overloaded term people are using these days. Rights aren't removed from citizens because you don't like their politics or beliefs. If you cheer when someone is deplatformed, remember that it is a short walk for your own ideas and beliefs to be deplatformed when the winds change.
- kgraves 7y ago> I FULLY support the right to free speech of all citizens, including "nazis" Careful there, you yourself might be a nazi by the left's logic. /s
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- anoncake 7y agoLefty here. Most of us understand the difference between a nazi and a fool.
- stcredzero 7y agoThen how is Tim Pool labeled Alt Right? How is Ben Shapiro labeled Alt Right? I'll be satisfied that the Left doesn't want to use corporate power and force to silence people, when the Left starts calling out the left for doing it.
- anigbrowl 7y agoNazis don't support the free speech of other people, or even their freedom to exist in many cases. 'No smoking' signs in gas stations sorta restrict freedom too, don't they?
- fzeroracer 7y agoOkay, we've established you fully support the right to freedom of speech without compromise. As a question, do you own any property? If someone planted signs in your lawn or decided to yell at you on your property, would you accept this? Any compromise would be a violation of their right to freedom of speech and you would be censoring them. Would you let them into your home lest you censor them?
- v7p1Qbt1im 7y agoTolerance of intolerance may lead to the loss of tolerance. The NSDAP propaganda machine, for example specifically targeted this line of thinking.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoThat's an argument for active participation in the political process and an engaged electorate, not censorship. To default to the support of censorship of what you disagree with is simply laziness (and antithetical to the fundamental principals of a democratic society). If your government and society can't withstand the free expression and discussion of unpleasant ideas, you have problems with the current implementation of government and society (and the unpleasantness isn't at fault). Masking the symptom doesn't solve the root cause. To your example, you put misplaced blame on a propaganda machine, not uneducated, unengaged, emotional citizen voters.
- anoncake 7y agoI prefer a democratic society that suppresses its enemies while trying to solve the root cause to one that gets destroyed and definitely won't solve the root cause.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoCan’t suppress enemies in a democratic society without violating the very rights enumerated and protected by said society. The populace itself must inoculate itself against such malicious actors with activism, intelligent discourse, critical thinking, and political engagement.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]