[sn0w_crash]

People keep saying this because they’ve read up on history and know that never before has banning speech led to any positive outcome.

The resentment builds up over time, the bans add fuel to the fire, and the “ bad speech” only comes back later in greater numbers and even worse forms.

What’s worse is the “bad speech” goes underground and begins communicating in less obvious ways.

You’re looking at this through a 10 year lens thinking “we vanquished Alex Jones, and we will defeat the next one.”

Look at it through a 100 year lens and you might see a different picture.

[UncleMeat]

> People keep saying this because they’ve read up on history and know that never before has banning speech led to any positive outcome.

Which manuscripts? Claims of "reading history" are often false. The same people who support Tate also tend to hate academic historians, for example.

[vimacs2]

Bullshit. For one, no speech has been "banned" here. Andrew Tate and others of his ilk are free to preach their hateful message but they're not free to do it off the backs of others.

As for the 100 year view, you don't have to do anything for bigots to "build up resentment" and last time it reached boiling point, we had a civil war where we kicked their ass. The biggest reason why racism prevailed so strongly in the South (and to a lesser extent, the North) had nothing to do with resentments. It was because Lincoln deciding to play the appeasment game and picking a Confederate ex-slave owner as VP who promptly halted and reversed Reconstruction post Lincoln's assassination.

No matter what time scale you view things, reality contradicts your view.