Why do so many socialist/communists/leftists adopt libertarian rhetoric when it comes the subject of freedom of speech and deplatforming? - "Muh private company can do whatever it wants!"

[Made In China]

Fixed that for you

Communism isn't your main threat, your primary enemies are wealthy capitalists using the actual communists as a tool to sow discord.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Communism isn't your main threat, your primary enemies are wealthy capitalists using the actual communists as a tool to sow discord.

Hey, keep telling yourself whatever helps you sleep at night...

 

[5ever a crab]

One thing that really concerns me about the future is hearing the youth talk about censorship like "I'm ok with it as long as it's against something I don't like". These people have no idea that the very idea of free speech is that you defend the bad stuff and in turn, someone is willing to defend you, and both are kept safe. If you try to make free speech a luxury, you'll find that a lot of people are very addicted to that luxury and are ready to defend it.

Plus, if "Hate Speech" ever becomes a thing in the US, who do they think gets to define that?

A: Whomever is in power. I somehow doubt they want Trump deciding what they can and can't say.

It's happening already which should be worrying.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/mntXiDDnT_E/

You could be some scientist who never engaged in politics, and you research can be instantly discarded because some schizo soyboy thought you were a nazi because you described blood as "red" instead of "ruby". When we get an actual deadly and competent coof pandemic in the future, and if he haven't already gotten rid of these fucks out of our research departments, then we're goners.

 

[Mortal Wombat]

Fixed that for you

It's really depressing to think that despite the death toll of over 100 Million people under Communism and The Soviets losing the Cold War, there are still people whom not only unironically call themselves Communist, they adamantly support these same ideals; Even worse, they will swear up and down that those failures don't count thus they will never be able to solve these issues; at least if they did that much, they would be infinitely closer to creating a real world working model of their desired system.

Although like I said further up, any political system could work in a small enough group in solidarity, which naturally excludes a country as large and diverse as the good ol US of A, unless we get State Right's back someday; A man can dream at least .

That being said, I would have infinitely more respect than I currently have for these so called revolutionaries if they actually practiced what they mother fucking preach; Better yet, how about they fucking buy a plot of land in the middle of nowhere to make a commune with their comrades and leave the rest of us alone? At least that way their failure would be quarantined from the rest of us, but we all know collectivist are seldom content with a small following, no, they want everyone under their thumb.

And on that note, I leave you all with everybody's favorite Programmer/GlowNigger Hunter and his take on Communism.

https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=ip5W3XgZPHg

 

[Sage In All Fields]

My question is, why do they do this? Are they aware of how defending megacorporations contradicts their leftists principles, or are they simply too dumb to see the contradiction? And if it's the former, how do they justify this contradiction?

There are two reasons people advocate for free speech absolutism:
1. They're delusional and genuinely think letting every retard spew whatever retarded shit pops into their head is a good idea because 'muh marketplace of ideas' or something
2. They believe it's politically expedient for them to advocate for it
Most people are 2, very few people are 1 and those who are 1 will quickly be convinced of 2 with time if they don't just abandon the free speech cargo cult entirely (as I did).

 

[Dyn]

They're delusional and genuinely think letting every retard spew whatever retarded shit pops into their head is a good idea

But it is a good idea.

 

[Jan Ciągwa]

Overreaction is necessary to ensure that lolbertarianism is stamped out of existence. They need to be mercilessly mocked wherever they go so that no one ever takes their ideas seriously ever again.

Disagree. Lolbertarians I saw were mostly "live and leave me alone" types, one of them told me that it's hopeless trying to convince or change people, the true&honest Libertarian Path is to wait until society changes by itself to fit libertarian ideas.

The fact that you have a desire to mock and discredit people who didn't do you any personal wrong or don't even express desire to do it and want nothing to do with you tells a lot.

 

[Made In China]

Disagree. Lolbertarians I saw were mostly "live and leave me alone" types, one of them told me that it's hopeless trying to convince or change people, the true&honest Libertarian Path is to wait until society changes by itself to fit libertarian ideas.

The fact that you have a desire to mock and discredit people who didn't do you any personal wrong or don't even express desire to do it and want nothing to do with you tells a lot.

Libertarians may as well be anarchist-lite. Their dangerous economic ideas have caused irrepairable damage to society and they need to be eradicated at all costs.

 

[Penis Drager]

I am very sleep deprived so I couldn't make it beyond part 2 of the article you linked, but I fully intend to read it later in case there is more to it besides "Liberty and democracy are incompatible" which I already agree with anyways.

There's A LOT more to it. The peice can honestly be seen more as a treatise on race relations than anything else. There's also some critique on the /pol/ crowd that, while he never mentions or cites them in particular, is a little too "on the nose" to be brushed away:

When ‘statistical common sense’ or profiling is applied to the proponents of Human Bio-Diversity, however, another significant trait is rapidly exposed: a remarkably consistent deficit of agreeableness. Indeed, it is widely accepted within the accursed ‘community’ itself that most of those stubborn and awkward enough to educate themselves on the topic of human biological variation are significantly ‘socially retarded’, with low verbal inhibition, low empathy, and low social integration, resulting in chronic maladaptation to group expectations. The typical EQs of this group can be extracted as the approximate square-root of their IQs. Mild autism is typical, sufficient to approach their fellow beings in a spirit of detached, natural-scientific curiosity, but not so advanced as to compel total cosmic disengagement. These traits, which they themselves consider – on the basis of copious technical information — to be substantially heritable, have manifest social consequences, reducing employment opportunities, incomes, and even reproductive potential.

 

[Jan Ciągwa]

Libertarians may as well be anarchist-lite. Their dangerous economic ideas have caused irrepairable damage to society and they need to be eradicated at all costs.

1. Ideas aren't dangerous, just like thinking about fucking your neighbor isn't adultery.
2. What damage to which society? AFAIK libertarianism was never put to practice anywhere.
3. IMO people who want to preemptively kill other people for having wrong ideas are more dangerous than people who just have wrong ideas, therefore they should be killed first, if ever that is...

 

[Made In China]

1. Ideas aren't dangerous, just like thinking about fucking your neighbor isn't adultery.
2. What damage to which society? AFAIK libertarianism was never put to practice anywhere.
3. IMO people who want to preemptively kill other people for having wrong ideas are more dangerous than people who just have wrong ideas, therefore they should be killed first, if ever that is...

1. Tell that to the people who want to kill communists because they perceive their ideas as dangerous
2. Real communism has never been tried either
3. See 1.

 

[Jan Ciągwa]

1. Tell that to the people who want to kill communists because they perceive their ideas as dangerous
2. Real communism has never been tried either
3. See 1.

1. I assume you think it's okay for you to use an argument you disagree with because people you didn't like used it first?
2. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Tito, Castro etc. etc. - name one libertarian dictator.
3. Let me explain: libertarians say communists have to be killed for their ideas (they don't said that to me, but let's assume), you say that libertarians have to be killed for having ideas about killing communists for having ideas. You're saying we should kill people like you, because they think like you.

 

[Made In China]

1. I assume you think it's okay for you to use an argument you disagree with because people you didn't like used it first?
2. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Tito, Castro etc. etc. - name one libertarian dictator.
3. Let me explain: libertarians say communists have to be killed for their ideas (they don't said that to me, but let's assume), you say that libertarians have to be killed for having ideas about killing communists for having ideas. You're saying we should kill people like you, because they think like you.

1. I don't disagree with it, ideas can be dangerous and dangerous ones need to be stamped out for the good of society. The problem with ideas is they don't just stay in your head.
2. Libertarianism doesn't create dictators, it just makes society collectively stupider and self-destructive.
3. No actually, the reason libertarians should be killed is because they're traitors who sold out their society to corporations.

 

[Mortal Wombat]

1. Ideas aren't dangerous, just like thinking about fucking your neighbor isn't adultery.
2. What damage to which society? AFAIK libertarianism was never put to practice anywhere.
3. IMO people who want to preemptively kill other people for having wrong ideas are more dangerous than people who just have wrong ideas, therefore they should be killed first, if ever that is...

1. I assume you think it's okay for you to use an argument you disagree with because people you didn't like used it first?
2. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Tito, Castro etc. etc. - name one libertarian dictator.
3. Let me explain: libertarians say communists have to be killed for their ideas (they don't said that to me, but let's assume), you say that libertarians have to be killed for having ideas about killing communists for having ideas. You're saying we should kill people like you, because they think like you.

You totally reminded me of this meme just now; Shit is trippy when Libertarians get blamed for shit happening or get called evil, like, nigga what?

 

[Lensherr]

You totally reminded me of this meme just now; Shit is trippy when Libertarians get blamed for shit happening or get called evil, like, nigga what?

I’ve been seeing this with a lot of dissident right-wingers like Nick Fuentes and E. Michael Jones lately: they blame libertarians for the degeneracy of the modern world even though that ideology hasn’t held the reigns of power at any point in the past 50-60 years when all the shit they find objectionable started to metastasize. In particular the latter went on a massive rant about how libertarians are responsible for the proliferation of pornography that has been causing massive societal harm in a Killstream debate with Styxhexenhammer666.

 

[Made In China]

You totally reminded me of this meme just now; Shit is trippy when Libertarians get blamed for shit happening or get called evil, like, nigga what?

Libertarians invented things like UBI, so really they're the true origin of all this communism.

I’ve been seeing this with a lot of dissident right-wingers like Nick Fuentes and E. Michael Jones lately: they blame libertarians for the degeneracy of the modern world even though that ideology hasn’t held the reigns of power at any point in the past 50-60 years when all the shit they find objectionable started to metastasize. In particular the latter went on a massive rant about how libertarians are responsible for the proliferation of pornography that has been causing massive societal harm in a Killstream debate with Styxhexenhammer666.

The libertarian party hasn't held power but both parties have adopted economic libertarian ideas to destroy society. Conservatives moreso than liberals (neolibs are another story though). The funny thing about libertarianism is that all of the useful idiots who endorse it would be the first on the chopping block if their ideas ever came into fruition, and conservatives are finding this out the hard way right now.

 

[Saklas]

Because the companies and the SJWs that adopt this argument have the same goal, eliminate speech they don't like. Right now, the companies and SJWs agree on what bad speech is. So they don't see the fact that the censorship they advocate now will be used on them later.

 

[Bad Take Crucifier]

communists and leftists always lie, it's about that simple.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

It's really depressing to think that despite the death toll of over 100 Million people under Communism and The Soviets losing the Cold War, there are still people whom not only unironically call themselves Communist, they adamantly support these same ideals; Even worse, they will swear up and down that those failures don't count thus they will never be able to solve these issues; at least if they did that much, they would be infinitely closer to creating a real world working model of their desired system.

That quote inspired me for this one who might be worth for a meme: "We remember the 6 millions of jews killed by Hitler but why about the 100 millions of people killed by communism?"

 

[Slap47]

I respect Kyle for having some consistency on free expression but your average Dem-Soc/Left-Libertarian is functionally retarded.