ican1

This xkcd comic didn't age well: https://xkcd.com/1357/. Liberals used to cheerfully link to this whenever a conservative was deplatformed. I don't think they'll trot out this xkcd anymore when their favored people are being censored.

Is there an objective way of distinguishing between an activist and a bigot? The CCP can just say that they consider this activist to be a bigot.

Internet platforms should never have been in the business of censorship. Unfortunately, liberals encouraged them to censor their political opponents for short term gain. The result is sad but predictable. Any speech that offends someone powerful is now subject to possible censorship.

I'm surprised why hating on America is fashionable in HN. If this hatred was directed against countries like France or Germany it would be immediately shut down as "nationalist flamewar."

I'd also like to point out that the US has a higher GDP per capita than most European countries and more Europeans immigrate to the US than the reverse. If US is as bad as you say then why does that happen?

This comment is unnecessarily antagonistic. The government here doesn't intrude as much on private employment contracts as in Europe. Maybe as a result the salaries in the US are much higher and unemployment rate over time also much lower.

Who gets to determine who is a "literal Nazi"? Is Jordan Peterson a "literal Nazi"? His films are currently being canceled.

Karl Popper was talking about intolerance as in a group who resort to violent actions against another group (e.g. killing people for making cartoons). Merely expressing an opinion is never intolerance. Karl Popper, a lifelong supporter of free speech, must be turning over in his grave to know that his opinions are now being used to stifle speech.

Also who gets to define who is intolerant? Chinese government will surely say that the Hong Kong protesters are intolerant. Does it make it okay to censor them?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, often misattributed to Voltaire.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

Free speech only for political mainstream is political mainstream speech, not free speech. E.g. completely open borders and unrestricted immigration is surely outside the American political mainstream, is it okay to ban any discussion of it?

When conservatives were banned en masse the liberals cheered. Their argument was that censoring by private companies was totally acceptable. Now that their preferred positions are being censored they've suddenly rediscovered the value of free speech. I hope they learn the lesson from this - free speech is too precious a right to be given up just to shut down your opponent. If your opponents are censored today, you'll surely be tomorrow.

How can the parent topic be something to do with the topic but this comment is not? How can one talk about the Kashmir conflict without discussing it's history? There's regularly discussions about various political/controversial topics in HN without them getting shut down. You are really showing your bias here, dang.

The racism is actually shown by Kashmiri Muslims who ethnically cleansed Kashmiri Hindus. Hundreds of thousands of Hindus were forced to leave the Kashmir Valley.[1] Hundreds of Hindu temples were destroyed.[2][3] Even now they're forcing people from other Indian states to leave.[4]

If the behavior of Indian forces is really as bad as it is claimed then why no large scale migration of Kashmiri Muslims happened like it happened for Kashmiri Hindus or Rohingyas[5]?

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus

[2]https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/208-temples-destroyed-in-kash...

[3]https://www.google.com/amp/s/arisebharat.com/2019/02/13/a-li...

[4]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2019...

[5]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_conflict