> What taxes people should pay is politics, allowing excessive threatening of public figures with violence is not politics On one hand, claiming threats or vio

> What taxes people should pay is politics, allowing excessive threatening of public figures with violence is not politics On one hand, claiming threats or violence is a typical strategy to ban speech you dislike and it's usually dishonest. On the other, the acceptable mainstream US centric democrat leaning subs are vitriolic, threatening and all that jazz against many political leaders and that's A' OK. Why? Because it's acceptable to want do so against republican's or Putin or "the new designated evil guy" because "it's a response to THEIR violence". It's the whole "I claim your speech is violence therefore I can actually be violent against you". > The fact that you won't mention a single one or give an example is telling. In your other comments you are upset about r/The_Donald Nah. I know the likes of you. You're a dishonest person who will use ad homs and distract from the point. I have no intention of arguing about each sub. TD is a very obvious one but you could just as well talk about other subs, there's plenty, who were slowly muzzled. This includes balcan subs, lefty subs, feminist subs... Just as long as they weren't playing a specific tune. Obviously there's more towards US right leaning but not limited to. TD was just an impressively obvious example. NNN was another one. > Companies don't want to host and broadcast threats of violence and hate speech. They do. Happily. Just have to be against the right targets. Around 2001 it was Muslims. Today it's Christans. I defended both. I can criticize their faith or culture without wanting to deplatform or hide them from view. > The mistake here is what you think of as 'politics' a lot of other people would think of as stochastic terrorism Yeah. Yeah. 2001 called and said stop the "terrorism" bullshit. It's not an argument. It's your own bs definition ripe for abuse. To me, you're terrorizing anyone who has a different opinion. Semantic bs. > There are plenty of places where you can give your opinion backed up by evidence. There are even plenty of places where you can say anything you want (like voat) regardless of how awful and disgusting it is. The problem isn't that you want to be able to say what you want, the problem is that you want your toxicity broadcasted to a wider audience and no one has to do that. Nah. That's bullshit. You're an authortiarian wanted to shut down others with different ideas than you by virtue of having political or economic power. They did this to people against the war of Iraq, Libya and now Ukraine. They did it if you opposed Israel's apartheid or if you opposed covid policies. They did it calling you extreme left or extreme right but it's always some bs authortiarian pretending to have a moral standing when all they have is a lever to shut you up. It's not even that the majority agrees. It's literally aggressive deplatforming by political maneuvers. Politicians routinely squash news articles too, with the same absurd reasoning. You're the problem.