4 ms·

Anyone who's always willing to take the gun in hand or instigate others to do it before any evidence is presented either way is dangerous for society and for de

Anyone who's always willing to take the gun in hand or instigate others to do it before any evidence is presented either way is dangerous for society and for democracy. And by evidence I mean more than pizza-gate type allegations on FB or Twitter. This being said just "not agreeing" with someone is not a reason for censorship.

coldtea 6y ago
>Anyone who's always willing to take the gun in hand or instigate others to do it before any evidence is presented either way is dangerous for society and for democracy. Which is neither here, not there. Those banned weren't those that stomed the capitol.
- buran77 6y ago
  > Which is neither here, not there It is the answer to your question* though, along with a practical example of what happens when instead of stopping obvious radicals and extremists you just ask "but how do we reaaally know?". >> * how would you discern conspiracists from realists that tell it like it is? If you are willing to take radical action with no evidence, or encourage others to do so you may be called a "conspiracist" and you are definitely a danger to society and democracy. DJT and "Stop The Steal" (whose ban you were objecting to) are today definitely way into the realm of "baseless accusations and incitement to radical actions". And it turns out reality unfolded exactly as predicted. So what was your objection to them being banned? That they were only "telling it like it is"? That it was FB and Twitter deciding? That it's just opinions and won't lead to anything more? Your comment was in effect a mix of many mostly questions-related fallacies and vague implications but no direct, actual argument. That's no way to carry a useful, productive conversation. But I will say it again, just not agreeing with someone is not a reason to ban them. Banning should be a protective measure when facing an imminent threat.

coldtea 6y ago

>Anyone who's always willing to take the gun in hand or instigate others to do it before any evidence is presented either way is dangerous for society and for democracy. Which is neither here, not there. Those banned weren't those that stomed the capitol.

buran77 6y ago
> Which is neither here, not there It is the answer to your question* though, along with a practical example of what happens when instead of stopping obvious radicals and extremists you just ask "but how do we reaaally know?". >> * how would you discern conspiracists from realists that tell it like it is? If you are willing to take radical action with no evidence, or encourage others to do so you may be called a "conspiracist" and you are definitely a danger to society and democracy. DJT and "Stop The Steal" (whose ban you were objecting to) are today definitely way into the realm of "baseless accusations and incitement to radical actions". And it turns out reality unfolded exactly as predicted. So what was your objection to them being banned? That they were only "telling it like it is"? That it was FB and Twitter deciding? That it's just opinions and won't lead to anything more? Your comment was in effect a mix of many mostly questions-related fallacies and vague implications but no direct, actual argument. That's no way to carry a useful, productive conversation. But I will say it again, just not agreeing with someone is not a reason to ban them. Banning should be a protective measure when facing an imminent threat.