(Which is correct so there’s nothing wrong with that)

One full tank of gas on your motorcycle could be enough for a lifetime…

It turns into a checkmark as soon as you have the song in your playlists. For new songs, its just a plus button (at least for me)

But communist views ARE censored

And I dont think they should be censored (even though I disagree with their views). See what I mean?

Start arguing for Marxists to have their own shows on Fox News and AM radio and I will recant

I dont care for US shows though if FoxNews and AM Radio are private companies, they can IMO do what they want

yet only THEY are complaining about censorship. This is how I have determined that you are a Nazi

Im not complaining about censorship, there is nothing that is currently bothering me, Im just arguing for the principle of a general non-exclusive freedom of expression. For absolutely everyone.

What is it that you want to say that you think is being censored?

Im not arguing for a specific thing not to be censored, Im arguing that everyone should have the freedom of expression, no matter their political views. That is a matter of principle.

You linked a definition that agreed with me, then deleted it

Ummm… my previos comments are not edited and also, I didnt post a link to anything… I dont know what definition you are talking about (?) Maybe the one on the comment before (it didint change though)

Killing and enslaving should not be allowed and should be avoided at all cost.

The point is, however, if (lets say) a communist killed and enslaved people, should that mean that communist views should be censored in the future? (No! IMO)

Killing and enslaving people are terrible and unacceptable ways of pushing one’s own ideals. It does not make the actual opinion itself invalid though.

Not tolerating someone (“the intolerant”) makes you, to a certain extent, intolerant yourself. According to your own logic, they then should not tolerate you (the shouldn’t “tolerate the intolerant”).

Essentially, who is “intolerant” depends on your subjective opinion and cannot be objectively determimed, except if that person accepts all voices to be heard, in that case we could say they are very much tolerant. In any other case, it depends on your opinion.

What’s the value of tolerating any other opinion than yours?

Well I dont think we can really draw a line objectively between “should be allowed” and “should be cencored”. It will always be based around one opinion (or one range of opinions but never truely objective).

Killing and enslaving are both means to do something, not the actual reason itself. If any person with a different political view wanted to do the same, it would be just as bad. Everyones opinion should be allowed.

I have to assume that you are a Nazi yourself

(Wrong). Its interesting that you think that just because I argued everyones opinion should be allowed.

Everyone’s OPINION has to be tolerated. If you dont tolerate the people you deem “the intolerant” then those people will see you as intolerant (against them) aswell. According to you, they would then be right not not tolerate you (as “the intolerant” that doesnt tolerate them).

As long as they dont take away from anybody else’s freedom (and by just stating one’s opinion one doesnt do that) it has to be tolerated, otherwise it is censorship.

Measuring quantun superpositions can have different outcomes under the same circumstances, right? So therefore, it cannot be deterministic (= what you described) because randomness is involved.

If you say you are right to censor your worst enemys then the Nazis were logically also right to censor the opinions of the people THEY hated the most…

Supporting only certain peoples freedom of speech is the definition of censorship…

“Freedom of expression of opinion” would be a more fitting term, as it is called in most languages. Death threads and shouting fire in a crowded theater are not opinions…

Censorship of any opinion is bad.

(What I meant is: Capitalism is not relevant here. Maybe sometimes it is the root of the problem but not in every case (and certainly not in this one).

Cato_the_podasist did. The OP of this thread said that this post has nothing to do with capitalism and that we should therefore stop talking about it here. Cato_the_podasist argued against that saying that pointing out the source of the problem is always relevant, THEREBY IMPLYING that pointing out capitalism is always relevant (because capitalism doesnt have anything to do with this post specifically) so if its relevant here, then were is it not relevant?

Counter-counterpoint: Capitalism isnt the source of every problem and sometimes there isnt even a problem.