6 ms·
What's the worst-case scenario if they had succeeded? That they take some people hostage and have a stand-off until the FBI takes them down? There was no path t
by edbob 6y ago
What's the worst-case scenario if they had succeeded? That they take some people hostage and have a stand-off until the FBI takes them down? There was no path to them attaining any actual power. Their actions were violent and bad, but had no actual effect on anybody outside of D.C. That is not what I call an "existential threat".
Again, you have to compare the downsides of free speech vs the downsides of censorship. If you only look at the cons of free speech, then of course you will hate it. But if you compare one impotent riot to the tens of millions dead as a result of suppression, then free speech seems much more valuable.
- baggy_trough 6y agoI would think assassinations.
- edbob 6y agoThat would be very bad if it happened, although existing institutions proved sufficient to prevent this. Still, we've had many assassinations in our history, often at the presidential level. None of them were "existential threats". They were all handled by existing institutions and did not require throwing out our core values.
- lisper 6y ago> There was no path to them attaining any actual power. They currently have actual power. Their leader is currently the president of the United States. For the next 48 hours he could nuke Tehran if he wanted to. And what actually happened is far from the worst-case scenario. Imagine a comparable mob, but well organized, and armed with assault rifles. That was (and remains) a real possibility.
- edbob 6y agoYou seem determined to focus only on the worst possible hypothetical downsides and not consider anything else. Of course in this case free speech will prove to be an evil that must be eliminated. You win.
- alwayseasy 6y agoThe worst-case scenario is the end of democracy in the USA in the next 15 years. If one side stays convinced the elections were fraudulent and Trump is a victim , it will cause a permanent shift in how Americans see their own democratic elections. Historically, since democracy has existed, that vacuum is always filled by an authoritarian leader.
- antibuddy 6y agoHowever, what if the election really was fraudulent? I mean the video in Georgia after the election observer were sent home, were pretty incriminating. Also seeing how BLM got backing and did way more damage, makes this all look pretty one-sided. It's only okay if they do it.
- alwayseasy 6y agoInterestingly, the democrats would have fixed the elections but only managed to win the Senate in a tight run-off? After spending $100 million, the Trump campaign's legal team found no admissible evidence of election fraud, just videos they can use for future campaigns attacking democracy.
- confidantlake 6y agoWhat is happening to this site? The comment above is alleging election fraud, which has been debunked by multiple court rulings from judges across the political spectrum. It is not downvoted, flagged, nothing. The comment responding it to it gets downvoted?
- edbob 6y agoMy best guess is that liberals stopped reading higher in the thread. I would hope that moderates and conservatives would not find those claims very credible, but perhaps they do or are not so offended as to downvote. I was personally fine with the integrity of the election right up until censorship ramped up. Now I have zero confidence that I would hear about any problems. I still don't think the election was "stolen" or anything, but I'm no longer confident enough to downvote such an opinion. How are we supposed to really know what's true or not when we only hear one side of the story?