Discussion in 'Archives' started by Lead, Dec 4, 2018.
Boycotting advertisers and protesting the platform owner until they demonetize or ban A.
C is willing to let both of the authoritarian scumbags express their ideas. He values debate and free exchange of idea. He is reminiscent of the Founding Fathers. He is likely the leader of the group. This is the choice that supports freedom of speech.
A is says he supports an ideology that will ultimately "limit free speech" (whatever that means) if given political power. He has stated his point of view, and stated a hypothetical scenario in which a party he supports might limit speech somehow. He has not threatened anyone. He has not coerced anyone. Even his ideology that "limits free speech" is vague. This is the second best choice.
B has given a direct order to A to not speak. He will of course tell C to "shut the fuck up" too, because C's refusal to censor A is "tantamount to violence," or some nonsense like that. B is a self-righteous prick. He is the worst choice by a county mile.
Suppose that doesn't work and A continues to speak? What will B do to censor A now?
Tolerating intolerance isn't centrism it's idiocy. For someone who keeps trying to reference history as some sort of gotcha you certainly haven't seemed to learn anything from it.
John Adams defending people during an actual trial for an actual trial a couple hundred years ago has literally nothing to do with calling out bad, dangerous, and dishonest ideas today on the internet for what they are.
Damn. This Cubo win is causing a meltdown in a small group of posters
I like how in your explanation A's ideology is vague and hypothetical, but B will definitely tell C to shut up for nonsense reasons created by you to sound like nonsense.
Literally you: Person A might be a fascist, but at least he's not a self righteous prick!
I think you would agree I'm more B than C here.
A has a right to say whatever dumb shit they would like, I will use my right to call them a cunt. I'm not interfering with their right to be a dumb cunt, just calling them what they are. Person A of course will have their vagina packed with sand and pretend, that my calling them out for being a cunt, is completely unfair. The fact that person C is willing to pretend that person A's ideology is worth the time to talk about, makes me believe person C may also be a dumb cunt, but they also have the right to be a dumb cunt.
Tolerating intolerance lol. Both sides do that.
I am a centrist. Racism is wrong. Theory debunked.
You didn't do anything but swap what abouts, make bad historical analogies, and now you're both sidesing, lol.
Call them out by name, it always more fun that way.
There is political corruption on both sides. One side is more racist, but the other side is pandering so much that it circles back to racism.
It's gotten to the point that moderates are being shit on. Wtf.
Waiting for the awards thread to show up.
Let's take this to the logical conclusion.
Let's say A is not silenced and continues to build support from the dregs of social media. Let's say that he speaks to forums and with tactics that are not conducive to being challenged with traditional intellectually honest, rational debate. Let's say his movement picks up steam and is starting to pick up political traction. Let's say that the movement starts inspiring legislation that erodes free speech.
At what point does C, the supposed champion of free speech, determine that A's views are an existential threat to his values, and what is his appropriate response?
@Limbo Pete where you at?
You think I could possibly win anything?
What do you want to win? I'll nominate you for whatever.
C is defending free Speech
B is utilizing it
Not sure what the pt being made here is
Separate names with a comma.