More of Floyd's readers resist the idea of debating "Martin Timothy" (or "Timothy Martin," as the order may be, for saying things so dangerous that they must not be spoken.
In response to this, readers suggest that because paid political operatives sometimes post annoying comments on websites, any website operator must delete viewpoints that go out of bounds. Response follows:
Your examples are akin to saying, "You don't like drone strikes? Well,
what if Muslim terrorists killed YOUR family??! What would you do then,
If we adopt the policies of ignoring, marginalizing, and shutting out,
then those policies govern a stagnant consensus, and we or our children
will find ourselves unable to address the next set of concerns to come,
just because they won't fit within a preexisting set.
Censorship is what creates the very echo chamber Chris decries.
Mainstream media and major blogs censor in order to maintain a stasis
charade. By adopting these policies here, we are merely being a
different part of the same system, rather than a rejection of what it
"I" have confidence in your ability to counter Mr. Martin-Timothy's
arguments, and to expose genocide as wrong for a tangible reason that he
can understand. Genocide isn't wrong because it's spelled
G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E. It's wrong because it's evil. Exposing it and dealing with it is how it is stopped--unless you'd prefer drone strikes.
Is all you really want here to get together and agree with other people
that the Anglo-American Empire is violent? Or do you want to have ready
the tools to always face injustice with humanity? When injustice walks
in the door to speak to you, why shut it out? That's your chance to
engage it. To help Marty/Tim/whatever and perhaps turn him into an
ally. It's the very human interaction that has the power to turn this