RE: Nazis hate being called Nazis according to Washington Post/Operation Mockingbird propaganda

Thanks for the response, but I will pretty much agree to disagree with every remark you made.

For starters, you stated these kids speak don't speak out against violence. There's plenty of proof they are and have been all along. If you want to live in denial of it then go right ahead.

You also stated they're speaking out against basic civil rights. My question is, says who? They aren't calling for a ban of the 2nd amendment, they're calling for gun reform, a huge difference.

In regards to censorship, contrary to your claims, not all censorship is the result of one trying to silence their critics. I moderate on Google+, and while we aren't concerned with a difference in opinion, we are concerned with people purposely lying to deceive the public, as well as harassing other users, and not without cause.

For one, its easy to confuse ideas (opinions) with statements of events (news), but both are not the same thing, though are often showcased together. A statement of events is not an opinion. I'm sorry, I just don't find it reasonable to assume that social platforms should tolerate people purposely misleading the public with flat out lies.

You stated, "if you are right then why would you ever have to worry about silencing someone who was incorrect?"

The answer is very simple, misinformation often has the potential to lead to real-world violence, as was the case with the junk Pizza Gate story that ended with an an innocent pizzaria owner having his restaurant shot up while his employees and guests were inside.

Or in the case of Sandy Hook, in which people started sending death threats to the victims families. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/08/sandy-hook-hoaxer-gets-prison-time-for-threatening-6-year-old-victims-father/?utm_term=.43945c45fda8

Or in the case of the Las Vegas tragedy, in which a politically motivated fake news story spun by the disreputable Gateway Pundit cited an innocent man as being the shooter. The Pundit blamed Geary Danley for the shooting, and we all know it was Stephen Paddock, not Danley that was behind it. The pundit trid to delete the story, but archive.org still has it: http://web.archive.org/web/20171002094504/http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/10/las-vegas-shooter-reportedly-democrat-liked-rachel-maddow-moveon-org-associated-anti-trump-army/

Danley started receiving death threats as a result of the Pundits story. The lady who harassed the Sandy Hook victims families, along with the shooter of the pizzaria are both in prison now, and Alex Jones got sued and lost over the Sandy Hook story.

The point here, misinformation is often used as a tool manipulate public thinking, and as I just showed you, it can seriously negative consequences if its allowed to persist.

In regards to your statement about freedom of speech:
Freedom of speech doesn't mean the freedom to threaten and harass others, the law affords no one such a right. Freedom of Speech is also a right afforded to citizens in a public place, or their own home. Social platforms are not a public space, although people often assume that they are. They are private platforms, and people should pay more attention to the disclosure agreements when they signup for these platforms. There is no right to freedom of speech on YouTube for example, but no one bothers to read the fine print. Google makes it very clear they have the right to terminate anyone's account at any time, and for any reason.

If people want freedom of speech on the web, then they create their own website, social platform, etc.

Likewise, if there was no censorship on the web, then we'd be permitting thousands of spam posts full of junk ads, hate speech, harassment, and links to sites riddled with malware all over G+. Obviously we aren't going to tolerate that.

In regards to your statement regarding my being shot: "Why was I unable to shoot back?" So you're stating that people should have to carry a gun with them in order to walk to the store to buy ice cream? I'm sorry, but that's not only irrational, but unreasonable. Not everyone can afford a gun, and why should people have to live in fear just to walk to the store?

You stated that anyone who cries about gun violence is out of touch with reality?

Tell that to the family's of all those dead kids in Florida. While you're at it please make the same statement to all the victims of the Las Vegas tragedy, as well as the Google employees who were shot at YouTube headquarters today.

Apparently you don't visit St Louis MO much, as gun related violence and murder are an almost daily occurrence here, and much of it does happen at the hands of legal gun owners. In fact, the perpetrator of the Las Vegas tragedy legally purchased all of his guns. He had no real criminal history other than minor infractions that were non violent. Also, Nikolas Cruz who shot all those students legally purchased his guns as well. So I'm not sure where your argument is going.

At this point its pretty obvious you're just denying the facts and preferring to believe what you like, rather than what's true and correct. Which is your choice to do so.

While I honestly thought your reply was very irrational, at least you were rational enough to carry on an argument while keeping your cool. Its obvious we have strong differences of opinion here, and that's fine too.

And for the record, no I wouldn't down vote your content over a simple disagreement, and I would agree people she be more respectful of others opinions than that. In fact, I up voted your content, despite my disagreement. I do respect that everyone should be entitled to their own opinion.