[ebola1717]

Do you know what a false equivalency is? They banned a site that no one, even the site runners, would argue isn't explicitly about white nationalism. If anyone bans the likes of Breitbart or InfoWars, then maybe we can start this slippery slope conversation, but until then it's completely disingenuous.

[lovich]

The problem is that whatever group is considered evil can change day to day. Right now 99% of people, myself included, can agree that supremacists or neo nazis are bad people and output evil ideas. However, it wasn't too long ago that the majority of people were against gays getting married, or even different races getting married. When we set up precedent or infrastructure to harm a group outside of the rule of law just because they are assholes, we leave the opportunity open for those in power to remove other groups they don't agree with even when those other groups are not as clear cut evil

[beebmam]

Fairly certain that anyone that advocates and supports death camps for Jews is evil. There's no justification IN ANY ERA for this.

[lovich]

That's not the point. Yes they are evil, I'd go as far as to argue that anyone who calls for the death of a group of people based on something they were born into are evil. The point is that when the precedent or ability is created to do these sort of extrajudicial actions to evil people, the ability still remains for it to be used on non evil people. If you let powerful people silence others based on how much you disagree with them, you will quickly find out that there are groups you think are ok that others also think should be silenced