Say you hold to a belief, or set of beliefs.
Say you are 100%, unequivocally convinced that those beliefs are the correct beliefs to hold.
Say you know it is just a matter of time until you convince everyone else of the correctness of your beliefs.
Given that set of operating hypotheses, why would it matter if disbelievers spoke up against you? You know you are right, and you know that is not likely to change, so what harm does the expression of a dissenting opinion do to you or your cause?
Not a whit. If you really were that completely enthralled with the correct-ness of your chosen belief, it simply would not matter how many people spoke up against it, or how vociferously they did so. In that case, why has the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Ownership gone out of their way to censor pro-rights activists’ comments and then lie about it?
It is unfortunate (for them, at least) that their beliefs are so weak they cannot withstand others’ beliefs being expressed. It is unfortunate (for them, at least) that they are so narrow minded they cannot even conceive of allowing free expression on their tightly-controlled corner of the cortex. It is unfortunate (for them, at least), that they do not control the message any more.
I will certainly grant that it is sometimes necessary, if not outright advisable, to squelch certain comments or commenters – I have outright banned one individual for his incessant cyberstalking of my family and myself, and auto-moderated another individual for his incessant personal attacks pervasive throughout his content-lacking comments; however, the fact that both individuals were anti-rights cultists was purely incidental to the consequences of their actions. On the other hand, the Brady Bunch goes out of their way to delete comments and ban commenters solely and exclusively for daring to disagree with their party line, and now they are lying about who deleted those comments and why.
On the other hand, they allow bloodthirsty comments celebrating the accidental death of another human being to stand for perpetuity. Friendly folks, that.
As I said before, when dealing with "gun control" extremists, it behooves you to keep records of what transpired, when it happened, and who did what; given their proclivities for lying about… well… pretty much everything, it was only a matter of time before they started to try to sock-puppet us in some vain attempt at bolstering their dying faith.
It must suck to believe in something so weakly you have to censor your opponents and then claim they voluntarily deleted their comments in order to convince others of the supposed superiority of those beliefs…
(Unsurprisingly, the Brady Campaign is not the only anti-rights organization to engage in creative comment editing.)
I’d pay good money to see someone like Joan or Baldr in a public debate on these issues. A pipe dream I know, but I can wish can’t I?
Yeah, not going to happen. While they are publically able to convince themselves that they know everything and can counter anything we toss at them, the simple truth is that they are doing nothing more than parroting talking points, and would simply come unglued in a public debate, moderated or not… and they know it.
Sure would be fun to watch them fold like a cheap house of cards, though…
I know lol, they rarely even venture onto an uncensored forum, the chance of a real live debate is nil.
That is the saddest thing of all – they make no attempts at prostelyzation, yet if you venture into their carefully controlled bubbles of reality, they react violently, viciously, and antagonistically. Wierd people, there is no doubt.
[...] pro-rights activists do not need to rule our comment threads with the iron fist of censorship, because we know our ideas will survive the arena of public [...]