[flagged]
What you've said here is not at all useful to anyone. You've expressed nothing except "what about those people I don't like?" So what? You don't like them. You've spent an awful lot of your post name-calling all the people you don't like. However, not everyone shares your view of a) the people you don't like or b) how they should treat the people that you, personally, do not like.
This other user has created a platform that seems useful, and made very clear where their line is on what is and is not acceptable on their platform. It's quite obvious that they hold different views on how the people you, personally, do not like should be treated, and their view is one that I think is consistent with a) the historically prevailing view, at least in America, and b) the historically prevailing view in the hacker community. It is you who are the outlier, and while it is fine to be the outlier, you cannot and ought not impose your repressive views on everyone else.
In short, you have it the wrong way round.
Secondly, "hate" speech, "weaponized" speech, objectionable speech, rude speech, loud speech, pick whatever adjective you like… are all free speech as long as they are free to be uttered without punishment, especially with respect to the law. You may claim the opposite but that would be you redefining what free speech is in a way that no one who has ever advocated for free speech has. You may as well tell people who are in a place where cannabis is legal that legal cannabis is not legal. You would simply be redefining things in a way that only suits you, but it would not be via reason and it certainly wouldn't be persuasive.
How are we to foster dialogue with people that want to kill us? That want mass murder and a cleansing of anyone that doesn't agree with them politically? How are we to dialogue with people who accuse anyone who doesn't align with them politically as pedophile satanists? Have you even seen what these people post online?
These people don't dialogue, they use words as weapons, and you are giving them the ability to weaponize and grift, period.
In reddit's r/askhistorians, where experts actually run things, they don't even allow people to ask questions about holocaust denialism, because they already know those questions are disingenuous, and allowing them does nothing to solve any problems.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subre...
> I think we can all agree that when we attempt to silence certain views, they are often pushed underground instead of being fully eradicated. Not only that...they gain more traction.
In what world? Study is showing that deplatforming works, it seems you are lying to yourself.
You seem scared of any opinion that is not shared with you, and then go directly to straw man arguments.
Talking works - Daryl Davis is a proof of that.
https://www.ted.com/talks/daryl_davis_why_i_as_a_black_man_a...
> You seem scared of any opinion that is not shared with you, and then go directly to straw man arguments.
And you, too scared to confront your nihilism apparently.
free speech includes opinions that are slightly more conservative than you. name-calling does not change that.
Have a watch of this short history of the proud boys and tell me if an organisation like the proud boys merits being banned anywhere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsNlteJQunc
It's also very curious how organisations like BLM or antifa never make it onto these lists of boogeymen that need to be censored, even though they've said and done plenty of despicable (even criminal) things. Ever wonder why? It's for the same reason that not a single piece of fake news about Trump has ever been censored, even though real news about Biden is being censored and called fake news (remember the Hunter Biden laptop?). It's because censorship only serves to consolidate and protect the power of the authoritarians who implement it. That is dangerous no matter which side does it.
You know the answer to this question, you just don't care. Or you care more about enabling the grift and hate then you do about any sort of truth or free speech.
It's your loss, he's a gentle spirit and a clear thinker.
All your huffing and puffing, denouncing people who you do not know the slightest bit about with hollow words like "fascist" that get flung around carelessly without regard for the actual definition of the word or for consistency of application, is nothing but a smokescreen to hide the intellectual insecurity that is the result of being trapped in a 'liberal' group think bubble.
You know who else denounced their fellow citizens as evil and wouldn't allow anyone to challenge their beliefs? That's right: Fascists. Now, I'm not saying you are a fascist. I'm merely saying that you exhibit the same kind of bad behaviour that makes actual fascists bad.
But comments like yours are free advertising to services like Pinepage because they illustrate so wonderfully how desperately needed a service like theirs is.
Your opinion is worth less than dogshit on a shoe, an 11 minute propaganda piece isn't going to change that.
People come to hacker news for substantive constructive discussion. Passionate disagreement is fine, that's how we learn, but your posts lack any semblance of substance. By that, you've demonstrated that you are not part of this community, so please show yourself the door. Now's the right time to exit this discussion and keep quiet before some mod will do it for you.
Ultimately, words don't matter to you. There is no discussion to be had with someone who is as disingenuous as you are.