3 ms·

Please pick another example: these movements were never calling for genocide.

• AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Yeah, see, that's kind of the point. You censor a movement calling for genocide (or, more precisely, denying a genocide in the past). But if you're going to do that, do all of them. Censor Turkey denying the Armenian genocide. Censor those who sweep Stalin's crimes under the rug. Censor those who try to minimize the death toll of the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap forward. Censor those who say that the Europeans' conquest of the Americas was anything other than a genocide. And, if we were 50 years ago, censor the communists calling for global revolution. That's not a call for genocide, exactly, but it's a call for a lot of death, and for destruction of a class of people, which is in the same camp. But the problem is, once you do that, do you stop there? Or do you say, well, the Soviets are behind this "civil rights" agitation, so we have to censor that, too? And this "gay rights" stuff is corrupting the morals of our youth, so we have to censor that? And even if you say, no, violence only, don't censor anything else, somebody else is going to push for it to go further. How do you know that your viewpoint (violence only) is going to win? You don't. So be very careful about calling for censorship, even of things that you are sure are wrong. Soon enough it will be applied to things you're sure are right.