Discussions that change someone's racism or the penchant to mock the disabled generally don't happen on the internet. In person, with friends perhaps, but not on faceless forums where people are more likely to double down on opinions in the face of criticism when they are as extreme as racism.
Moderating discriminatory statements is fundamentally different than censoring a political oponent.
More importantly, these utter idiots don't even realize they are creating such profoundly anti-democratic precedents targetting a political rival that is actually contributing to their cause, as now they have very real and very specific examples of how they are being targettend and persecuted for their political views.
What if a political opponent's main platform position and primary rhetorical tactic is to make discriminatory statements? You can't just turn around and say "don't ban me, it's just politics!".
> What if a political opponent's main platform position and primary rhetorical tactic is to make discriminatory statements?
Censorship is never the solution. Censorship is the problem. Keep censoring idiots instead of demonstrating they are idiots and you end up making them out to be poor democratic martyrs instead.
Have they learned nothing from the history of fascist europe?
> Keep censoring idiots instead of demonstrating they are idiots and you end up making them out to be poor democratic martyrs instead.
Trump got far and away the majority of news coverage in the run up to the 2016 election. Everything he said was breathlessly reported, fact checked, and sometimes mocked for its inanity. That did not work out well.
The argument means shit. It's the action that counts, and these idiots decided it was a good idea to atively persecute and censor anything related to a political movement.
These morons don't even realize they're setting totalitarian precedents and are so full of themselves to the point they even boast their totalitarian leanings to have any moral basis, just like the textbook fascists from half a century ago did.
You have a point. However, my point is that the people behind this persecution and censorship campaign did not thought their plan through or at all, and this sort of persecution will obviously backfire by legitimizing the perception that Trump supporters are actually and inequivocally being targetted just for the crime of supporting a different candidate.
Exactly. Saying "I like the recently passed tax cuts" is different than saying "I support President Trump." The first is supporting a conservative policy decision, the second is supporting a person who would be banned from the forums themselves if they talked the way they do in real life as comments on the site.
> The first is supporting a conservative policy decision, the second is supporting a person who would be banned from the forums themselves
No, actually the second is punishing a person just because he presented an opinion on a president that you don't share and for some reason you feel it constitutes grounds to persecute and punish him. This sort of attitude is the hallmark of proper fascist parties and their militants, the kind that goes around wearing matching shirts persecuting those who don't fall in line or god forbid have opposite opinions.
