Censorship of speech is a powerful tool. Why, if you have the true conviction of your beliefs, would you fight with one hand behind your back?
Yes, but have you considered the outcome of everyone doing this?
Moreover, I’ve seen no evidence in my lifetime that letting my ideological opponents speak leads to positive results.
Mmmmm, yes. All ideological opponents should be silenced. This is clearly the way.
Seriously, if this is what you believe then you are clearly stating that you have no interest in a Free Society. You are literally placing yourself in the same group with every other Tyrant, Authoritarian, and Fascists who needs to be resisted.
Free Societies must tolerate dissent, it is a foundational requirement.
My ideological opponents are already silencing speech. I gain nothing by ceding that tool solely to them.
As long as fascists exist they must be silenced. When they seize power, they will not do you the courtesy of allowing you to speak just because you let them. It’s naive to think otherwise.
My ideological opponents are already silencing speech.
Uh huh. I can fire up Social Media and find endless content openly discussing the entire spectrum of Political,Cultural, and Economic beliefs. Nearly all of that is openly discussed on Mainstream Media as well. You aren’t being silenced.
As long as fascists exist they must be silenced.
Define “fascist”.
When they seize power, they will not do you the courtesy of allowing you to speak…
Which is precisely what you yourself are proposing. Congratulations, you are rubbing elbows with the very people you claim to despise.
If you do not tolerate dissent then you are ethically and morally inferior.
Ah yes, the classic “lOOk aT tHE TOlEraNt LEfT” argument.
Or is it maybe this one?
Or maybe it’s both. Ya know, because they’re the same argument. This exact argument has taken so many forms in the past decade, and it’s always founded on the same fallacy. It’s a false equivalency.
Violence (or the threat of it) is the only means of influence that the people have ever had. As you’ve correctly identified, when other avenues of enacting their will are stymied, violence results, but that threat of violence must be what sits behind every vote, or the vote would have no power.
To put it succinctly, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
Censorship of speech is a powerful tool. Why, if you have the true conviction of your beliefs, would you fight with one hand behind your back?
Moreover, I’ve seen no evidence in my lifetime that letting my ideological opponents speak leads to positive results.
Yes, but have you considered the outcome of everyone doing this?
Mmmmm, yes. All ideological opponents should be silenced. This is clearly the way.
Seriously, if this is what you believe then you are clearly stating that you have no interest in a Free Society. You are literally placing yourself in the same group with every other Tyrant, Authoritarian, and Fascists who needs to be resisted.
Free Societies must tolerate dissent, it is a foundational requirement.
My ideological opponents are already silencing speech. I gain nothing by ceding that tool solely to them.
As long as fascists exist they must be silenced. When they seize power, they will not do you the courtesy of allowing you to speak just because you let them. It’s naive to think otherwise.
Uh huh. I can fire up Social Media and find endless content openly discussing the entire spectrum of Political,Cultural, and Economic beliefs. Nearly all of that is openly discussed on Mainstream Media as well. You aren’t being silenced.
Define “fascist”.
Which is precisely what you yourself are proposing. Congratulations, you are rubbing elbows with the very people you claim to despise.
If you do not tolerate dissent then you are ethically and morally inferior.
Ah yes, the classic “lOOk aT tHE TOlEraNt LEfT” argument.
Or is it maybe this one?
Or maybe it’s both. Ya know, because they’re the same argument. This exact argument has taken so many forms in the past decade, and it’s always founded on the same fallacy. It’s a false equivalency.
The person I was replying too didn’t mention Left or Right and neither did I.
Silencing your ideological opponents is ethically and morally inferior and I don’t care what your supposed motivation is.
Question: are you really this dense, or just acting in bad faith?
“I want to eliminate all of insert racial or religious slur.”
“That’s bad.”
“I want to stop that person from saying and doing that.”
"That’s exactly as bad.*
I can sympathize with this.
My personal view is that when you silence speech, you leave people with no other means of influence but violence.
Violence (or the threat of it) is the only means of influence that the people have ever had. As you’ve correctly identified, when other avenues of enacting their will are stymied, violence results, but that threat of violence must be what sits behind every vote, or the vote would have no power.
To put it succinctly, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”