Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberal censorship"

Revision as of 19:51, May 29, 2009

I reverted the "censorship". Now make your case. ... Okay, I waited but no one is addressing the issue of whether liberals are using censorship to suppress opposing views.

I'm going to move the counteraccusation to a debate page. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:11, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Ed, I appreciate your reversion of my reversion. But my reading of that is that TK says we might block when opposing views are parotted and nauseam, ie the block is for disruptive editing and arguing just to delay and undermine CP, rather than being an ideological block. therefore the inference by the person who made the accusation was incorrect so I reverted it and I blocked her for untruth. if you disagree with me you may wish to unblock also. cheers, Bugler 12:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)

The question is, who are the real censors? I think we can make a case that it is liberals. The counteraccusation is a mere distraction. It's like liberals, socialists and communists who dismiss all criticism of Communist genocide and focus on their allegation that Pinochet murdered 3 thousand political opponents in Chile. It's a distraction, because even if all 3 thousand people who disappeared were "murdered" by the government, it's unrelated to the murder of over 30 million people by the Communist governments of China and USSR.

Two wrongs do not make a right, and one small wrong on one side does not justify a large wrong on the opposite side. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:21, 25 November 2008 (EST)

(afterthought) I value TK's input, but he might not represent the founder precisely in this. The question remains, "What is an ideological block?" Let's take this thread to Conservapedia:Ideological blocking, because we've gone far afield from liberal censorship. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Why is there a "Liberal censorship" page and not a "Conservative censorship" page? This seems a bit harsh... --Humph 15:51, 29 May 2009 (EDT)Humph