There's a huge difference.

"Everyone should ignore Fly" advocates an action by individual members of the forum. It does not advocate that the forum stops him from posting. It's akin to "If a Nazi is giving a speech, no one should show up." This is not censorship.

"Fly should be banned" advocates preventing Fly from posting to the forum. It's akin to "The Nazi should be prevented from speaking." This is censorship.

They are not equivalent.

Granted, I exaggerated your position. So what did you want us to do?

Going forward we should call it a "citizens ban" and make it a bannable offense.

If you don't want anyone in the US to see her speak then yes, is is the same thing.

You are not even trying to engage in honest debate so there is no longer any value in continuing. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I'm comfortable in my position given its shared by Noam Chomsky, Voltaire, George Washington, the framers and the ACLU, to name a few.

He kind of checkmates himself there. No one would get a platform to spread Radical Islam in the US already. You think supporters of ISIS are getting a permit to march around Charlottesville, carrying guns and torches no less? That they would be allowed to speak on university campuses? That the police wouldn’t/couldn’t prevent them from getting their asses kicked if they were granted their permits?

Holy ****, no it's not. If you cant see the difference between "people shouldn't go listen to Ann Coulter's speech" and "Ann Coulter shouldn't be allowed to speak" you are an idiot.

LOL

"Good day sir!"

LMAO

Read what you just wrote. I know you have decided I'm a nazi because I believe free speech means allowing speech we don't like, but there is no way you actually believe what you wrote.

My wishing nobody would ever see ever see another Ann Coulter speech is equivalent to her being expelled from the US?

Honestly? Stay on topic for the most part and talk about Trump. You know, the title of the thread.

Sointenly not about the Stooges.

And yea, I get it, I'm part of the problem. LOL.

Trump just really pisses me off.

So, given that we also now know that Clovis wanted moderator action, why do we have to assume that only the most literal interpretation can be used and that moderator inference of the statement should be forbidden?

If you did you'd know why Fly's 'spam' is incredibly topical and appropriate.

This is an internet message board. Advocating that Everyone ignore someone is calling for that person to no longer have a voice in the community. In terms of this community that is equivalent to being banned. Whether you, personally, have the power to ban that person or not doesn't change that you are asking for that person to no longer have a voice in the community. Don't get pissy with me because it's ineffectual at best and band wagoning at worst.

Wait nvm ban Fly for ponying me.

It's probably worse. Imagine living the rest of your days with no one listening to you speak. How would you make a living? How would you buy food or services. it would be a nightmare.

Ann Coulter should be permanently expelled from the US.

Maybe educate yourself? There's 70 million deaf people in the world that do not speak. Yet, they communicate. Shocking, I know!

There are no words...

Uh, we don't. This was never my position and I never said anything to this effect.

My positions are:
1. You shouldn't bring up post reports in order to make a point.

2. This post: is wrong. It's not functionally the same thing, as I already explained.

If Clovis also wants to censor Fly, or if Clovis is a hypocrite, that is not my problem. It's not related to the points above.

You really aren't paying attention. The reason no one is listening to her is because she has been shunned not because of the way she is communicating.

I'll show you one link. Both have groups of people who view them as less than human and less deserving of rights with the near certain future wish to expand it.



I am an atheist and have zero roots left in Eastern Europe due to concentration camps. I have no love for either group is a mild statement. I would like to never entertain another conversation on religious doctrine of any kind being a reasonable addition to an action. I also have no doubts about the entire lack of merit in the alt right/white supremacist/nazi philosophy. However. The slope is there and it is slippery and it is that way because even though you and I agree on the speech we are talking about, we will not be the judges of it going forward.



Case in point. I applauded executive orders in the last admin. Get it done. **** the obstructionists. Now I wish that was not a precedent. I'd give up the progress from then to block the assured destruction that will be magnitudes worse. The bad guys are not reasonable and they are meaner. The protection is not to keep you from shutting up Nazis, it is to keep them from shutting up the ****ing press.



I really get how you feel and agree. I'm not saying hear them out. That isn't the point. I feel like you have to see it. With the sheer absurdity of what is going on within what I hope we find out is more than painted cattle guards of a democracy I can't believe you would want to give an inch on what needs to be protected and is currently overtly threatened nearly daily. Like, how on earth do you plan to defend your logical exception to the rule as the only one against these monsters? We couldn't even keep them out of the whitehouse.

ETA: I mean this is what is waiting for the first opportunity. They are not going to provide you proof.

LOL

No, holy ****, you fundamentally misunderstand the conversation. Sure, the end result that Clovis hopes for (i.e. no one listens to Fly) is the same, but the mechanism by which that occurs is the whole ****ing point as it relates to a free speech discussion.

Again, presumably you would like to live in a US where no one listens to Ann Coulter. You could quite reasonably say "no one should listen to Ann Coulter's speeches." The end result of this (no one hears Ann Coulter's speech) would be the same as if the government banned Ann Coulter from speaking. This does not mean that the statements "no one should listen to Ann Coulter's speech" and "the government should ban Ann Coulter's speech" are equivalent.

Like, if I posted "Clovis is an idiot and everyone should put him on ignore because he sucks" would you think I was advocating for his banning?

Too many on the left bend over backwards to try and give idiots on the right considerations that are not extended to them. I'm tired of losing to these ****ing idiots that way. Not every opinion deserves equal consideration, as a nation we spent our blood and treasure to stop the Nazis once, it doesn't need to be considered anymore. Pseudo scientific bull**** has taken over the WH because for decades the Left has let idiots on the Right get away with saying their beliefs in God are just as valid as scientific fact. So I'm not worried about the monsters getting power, I'm pissed they have it already.