Comment on YouTube relaxes moderation rules to allow more controversial content

• Buelldozer@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • regul@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      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. 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. Full Stop.

      source

      • Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Ah yes, the classic “lOOk aT tHE TOlEraNt LEfT” argument.

        Or is it maybe this one?

        Image showing a stick figure saying they want to destroy a group of people, another saying they want to stop the first by any means, and a third claiming they’re exactly the same.

        This exact argument has taken so many forms in the past decade, and they’re always founded on the same fallacy. It’s a false equivalency.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Opinionhaver@feddit.uk ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  if you have the true conviction of your beliefs

  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.

  source

  • regul@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    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.”

    source