On one hand, claiming threats or violence is a typical strategy to ban speech you dislike and it's usually dishonest. Reddit let it go for a long time until th

On one hand, claiming threats or violence is a typical strategy to ban speech you dislike and it's usually dishonest. Reddit let it go for a long time until they couldn't any more. 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. Where is your evidence for this? 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". Putin is a war criminal committing genocide. No one on an internet forum is going to be able to threaten him, but most of the world hopes he dies. This is a bizarre stance to take. It's the whole "I claim your speech is violence therefore I can actually be violent against you". No one has to claim it, people are putting it in writing and leaving it on forums instead of deleting it. use ad homs Show me one. An ad hominem would be something like 'you're fat' instead of addressing an argument. I don't think you understand what it means. To me, you're terrorizing anyone who has a different opinion. Semantic bs. Threatening violence against people is terrorism. Me explaining reality to you is not terrorism. A company not wanting to broadcast threats and hate speech is not terrorism. You aren't entitled to everyone hearing what you have to say. You're an authortiarian wanted to shut down others with different ideas I'm not doing anything, I just explained to you why you can't say whatever you want on reddit.