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:
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.
I literally do. I talk until they prove themselves to be completely retarded and then they usually meltdown and stop responding. It amuses me, and it has multiple times managed to be convincing to people watching.
In fact, I argued against them for so long I saw myself go from "all the downvotes for criticizing them" to multiple people saying the same things I was with all upvotes while they themselves became mostly downvoted for being obvious spergs. We literally were turning Telia from some sort of serious political activist to a partial jester people dunked on through sheer time and mockery.
You have power, and you have convinced yourself that using that power is morally just and good for dealing with things you dislike or simply don't want to do. Everything is flowing backwards from your own opinions to justify using the sword.
Yes they are some people who are dangerous to allow to speak, yes it might be a "good thing" to remove them entirely rather than deal with them. But that also applies to eugenics, there are people who should just be aborted rather than run the risk of dealing with them.
Heck, that even applies to groups. Plenty of people will argue that Jews or Niggers would fail this test and shouldn't be allowed to speak at all because their very existence and lying tongues are warfare. You've spoken the very logic by which someone might end up in a racewar mindset.
You'll certainly say "its different because <essay>" but that is in fact the exact same starting position.