Comments by "No One" (@joermundgand) on "Sam Harris Drops Patreon - Other Creators Follow" video.

No it wouldn't, limiting dissent always leads to more extremism, it would have been worse, Weimar Germany banned "hate" speech, it didn't work, it never works.
5
Another example is the Shah in Iran backed by the CIA torturing and silencing all opposition, all dissent, presto Ayatollah.
5
Venezuela, silencing dissent from the left, presto Chavez.
5
It's a long list, but I'm sure you get the point.
5
Labelling a devout muslim who opposes islamists a nazi exposed them as nothing more tha a DNC smear tool.
2
@turnerwright You'll only make martyrs out of monsters, it won't work, you can't use the tools of a monster if you want to combat monsters, you'll only end up as a monster yourself, you have to sharpen your wit and use the weapons legally available to you. Nobody agrees with everybody about everrything, some ideas you think good are considered evil by somebody else, you'll have to prove through action and words that your ideas are beneficial to human beings. Besides how do you know that somebody is just evil, somebody might have bad beliefs and yet still be a good person, what happens if you destroy decent people because you think them evil, they won't become more decent that's for sure. The only thing that will have occured is this, you'll becmoe a little more monstrous and so will they.
2
@turnerwright You can hear anything at all in your bubble of reality, I already made a substantive cogent argument, you won't make bad ideas vanish by suppressing them, you'll make them worse, history is my proof buddy.
2
Jimmy gets it.
2
@turnerwright It's already illegal to encourage others to do such actions, that is not what you're attempting to ban, you're trying to ban people based on some notion that you can discern their motives using some sort of mind reading that interprets what somebody truly meant, but that's not going to work, you're going get a whole lot of people banned who make jokes, uses hyperbole etc... A Christian cult who leaves people in ignorance you say, interesting choice of bogeyman. It's not going to work and you're going to end up aligning yourself with some real monsters.
1
@turnerwright South Park - Safe Space - "In My Safe Space", Enjoy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXQkXXBqj_U
1
@turnerwright I guarantee you that if you begin to ban provocateurs that the World will become a bleaker less funny place, goddamn neo-puritan. "Somebody cancel Christmas and close the saloon, those ruffians are chewing tobacco, smoking cigars and doing anal with colored women". Your previous incarnation Anno Domini 1898.
1
@turnerwright I already stated what I have to say in terms of actual arguments, the personal attacks are effective because they hit the mark, you're a puritan, a humourless little turd who'll ban anything which provokes laughter at your expense.
1
@turnerwright "Seen it, and not impressed with ad hominem attacks. I guess you don't have anything substantive to say." Let me rephrase that little trade into what you actually said. "It's not funny when somebody mocks things I like and stop mocking me"
1
@turnerwright I repeated the same argument over and over, you just lack the ability to understand it, so I'll try again, the Roman emperors persecuted Christians for refusing to worship the Emperor as the head of the Imperial cult, this did not have the desired effect, the Roman Catholic church persecuted heretics who disagreed with church doctrine, this did not stamp out heresy, it had the opposite effect, the Sunni Imans perscute heretics in the past and today, this also has the opposite effect(hence Al Qaeda), the various communist regimes persecuted anti communists, this did not have the desired effect, the fascist regimes of South America persecuted communists, this did not have the desired effect, the list goes on and on. What you're suggesting will simply not work as intended, it will in fact have the opposite effect, it will not work at all, it will however in the long term empower the most extreme voices amongst those whom you disagree with. As I said previously, history is my proof.
1
@turnerwright The invention of the printing press had a similar effect, so did the invention of the telegraph, the phone, the radio, the televison, the fact the information is dispersed more effectively is not an argument that has any validity at all vis-a-vis censorship being a good thing. On the bright side you're now presenting the same argument that cardinal Mazarin used to limit the number of printing presses in France. How did that end btw for the ancien regime.
1
@turnerwright Glenn Beck got censored and more extreme voices took his place, now he's doing a whole mea culpa thing and nobody is listening, thank you for that epic own goal.
1
@turnerwright Your argument was that the latest technology changed the game and therefore censorship was necessary, I countered your argument by stating that technology has always been a game changer and that even the invention of the printing press caused people to make the argument that you're making, it had the opposite effect, those who made that argument ended up being dragged to the guillotine.
1
@turnerwright I remember reading once that being able to read and write cunei form was limited by law in the Hammurabi code to a certain class of scribes, it didn't work back then either.
1
@turnerwright And Alex Jones took his place, now that Jones is proscribed who will take Jones place, somebody worse, thank you for proving my point.
1
@turnerwright G'night dear scribe of Hammurabi...
1
@turnerwright In the short term you are correct, it will save some lives, in the long term it will cause genocide.
1
@turnerwright Oh I don't know about that, I'm enjoying your foolish lack of reasoning immensely.
1
Randolph Hearst did nothing wrong. Fabio" the last true Liberal".
1