When porn does a better job at exposing evil than any conservative ever has
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (60)
sorted by:
"matter" is in reference to the fact that there is an extremely niche, and extremely aggressive, group of terminally online people desperately attacking people who are operating outside of the Overton window to accept terrorism, so that dissenting opinions can always be permanently slandered. Everyone outside this hyper-aggressive, terminally online group are people that matter. This is always true for all people who are ideologically captured radicals.
So again, your opinion is gospel and god, and anyone who has an opinion that you consider bad ceases to matter, which means you can disregard anything they say.
I don't disagree these people exist. I actively acknowledged that some of the ones you just banned fall into the "terminally online, extremely aggressive, pro-terrorism" camp.
But to act like they don't matter, that their beliefs and opinions don't have a place at the table or worse don't need to be heard (even if only to know what to avoid and attack), is literally janny thinking. Its "if I ban them I win and they cease to exist" in a nutshell.
It's not about removing them from public discourse, it's about them not utterly destroying public discourse. Their win condition the most extreme form of censorship, and putting a bullet in anyone they deem to be a 'political' jew. The people you are trying to defend, are the people actively seeking to destroy the rights you are claiming to uphold. They do not share in the idea that those rights exist, nor do they believe in any of the presumptions of you have about rights or speech.
They do not matter. Take, for example, the retarded Austin Metcalf 'defend the whites' rally that happened today. A race-grifting freak claimed the need to defend the white race (while having a long history of race grifting from many sides), insulted the father, lied about the crime scene, and brought attention to himself to shill at the expense of literally everyone who interacted with him and his retarded rally in any way.
This man doesn't matter. Nothing he wants, thinks, does, or says matters. He did not come to the free marketplace of ideas to discuss, but to walk in the center of the room and take a shit on the floor. Even if he had points, those points don't matter, because he should not be entertained. He is a malicious actor purely bent on harm for self gain.
So too is anyone pushing historical revisionism and asserting race war.
I am defending myself, because all the sweeping accusations you are throwing can be applied to me any day by someone who has a slightly difference perspective or simply does not know me as long as you have.
This is why I defend most things, because I know that tomorrow I can be in that category easily and people will happily slurp it up as "yeah he was a problem he deserved it." Its while I'll defend lolishit, its why despite constantly fucking arguing and shitting on someone like Telia or Jester, I never called for their banning.
I have and will always disagree with you and Antonio's assertion that "these people are incompatible with everything, we cannot even allow their topic to be discussed" on these things. I have come to appreciate why you think that more, but on principle I will never agree with you.
These people matter, not for their value, but because they will always exist. Their idea isn't unique and will always spring up one way or another. If people aren't exposed to it, it will seem novel, radical, and powerful to those weak to such allures. Because those people will always exist as well and will always be ripe for picking up. Or worse, open to being grifted and manipulated by people whose intents are more self-interested and malicious instead.
You're confusing the idea of "their topic" versus, their behavior. Effectively, stuff like Judeo-Capitalism or Marxist-Leninism as a concept has to be policed because it is never discussed honestly, and is only argued via motivated reasoning, subversion, and threats. If it were merely an idea, brought up in a vacuum, then there would be no issue. But people pushing this idea have long ignored that their idea is one that celebrates open murder, and demands absolute adherence, and brokes no dissent. The idea falls apart under mild scrutiny, but the people espousing it have no interest in discussion in the first place.
There's a reason Freedom of Speech is considered in law as a mechanism of protected speech viewed as preventing "viewpoint discrimination". Fraud, conspiracy, and threats have never been protected. These are people engaged in rhetorical warfare. Dialogue is not dialogue, but a battlefield of which to engage in sophistry and rhetorical warfare. When they are speaking, there isn't any discussion or dialogue happening.
Unfortunately, for some reason, they happen to be particularly militant here. The do not tolerate that there is a space not obedient to their ideology. The do not accept any judgement that isn't in their favor. All actions to destroy dissent are inherently moral, and no one is allowed to tell them know. Or, in a word, Me Ne Frago. You can't have a marketplace of ideas that's being set on fire. There's no discussion taking place. There's no viewpoints being advocated. It's just force being espoused.
Yes, these people will always exist, but you're not going to have a discussion with them. They're not going to be defeated by debate. They're just here to set you on fire until you do what you're told, so you have to take a stand against them. Not the idea. Fundamentally, their ideas are merely worthless excuses for power. Restricting an excuse serves no purpose. Restricting their entire line of argumentation, which is what Rule 16 does, actually has value to disarm them.