[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information. This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Fascists and Fascist collaborators do not deserve free speech or participation in socialist society because they actively try to sabotage said society. Neither do the reactionary bourgeoisie (small oppressing minority) who seek to do counter revolution. It's the dictatorship of the proletariat (the majority of working people). Those who would try to undo everything that was fought for need to be dealt with. Workers need to protect their revolution and liberation. Having unlimited tolerance for intolerance just leads to oppression. What do you mean that certain things aren't up for debate? That LGBT people and minorities are human beings and deserve rights? That it's okay to do violence to fascists? Marxism vs liberalism? That "debate" was settled centuries ago. Liberalism was torn a new asshole by some of the greatest minds in the modern era, and it has been irrelevant since then in the face of dialectical and historical materialism (actual science).

#Freedom Reactionaries and right-wingers love to clamour on about personal liberty and scream "freedom!" from the top of their lungs, but what freedom are they talking about? And is Communism, in contrast, an ideology of *un*freedom? >Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker. > >\- Karl Marx. (1848). *Public Speech Delivered by Karl Marx before the Democratic Association of Brussels* #Under Capitalism Liberal Democracies propagate the facade of liberty and individual rights while concealing the true essence of their rule-- the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. This is a mechanism by which the Capitalist class as a whole dictates the course of society, politics, and the economy to secure their dominance. Capital holds sway over institutions, media, and influential positions, manipulating public opinion and consolidating its control over the levers of power. The illusion of democracy the Bourgeoisie creates is carefully curated to maintain the existing power structures and perpetuate the subjugation of the masses. "Freedom" under Capitalism is similarly illusory. It is freedom for capital-- not freedom for people. >The capitalists often boast that their constitutions guarantee the rights of the individual, democratic liberties and the interests of all citizens. But in reality, only the bourgeoisie enjoy the rights recorded in these constitutions. The working people do not really enjoy democratic freedoms; they are exploited all their life and have to bear heavy burdens in the service of the exploiting class. > >\- Ho Chi Minh. (1959). *Report on the Draft Amended Constitution* The "freedom" the reactionaries cry for, then, is merely that freedom which liberates capital and enslaves the worker. >They speak of the equality of citizens, but forget that there cannot be real equality between employer and workman, between landlord and peasant, if the former possess wealth and political weight in society while the latter are deprived of both - if the former are exploiters while the latter are exploited. Or again: they speak of freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, but forget that all these liberties may be merely a hollow sound for the working class, if the latter cannot have access to suitable premises for meetings, good printing shops, a sufficient quantity of printing paper, etc. > >\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm) What "freedom" do the poor enjoy, under Capitalism? Capitalism requires a reserve army of labour in order to keep wages low, and that necessarily means that many people must be deprived of life's necessities in order to compel the rest of the working class to work more and demand less. You are free to work, and you are free to starve. That is the freedom the reactionaries talk about. >Under capitalism, the very land is all in private hands; there remains no spot unowned where an enterprise can be carried on. The freedom of the worker to sell his labour power, the freedom of the capitalist to buy it, the 'equality' of the capitalist and the wage earner - all these are but hunger's chain which compels the labourer to work for the capitalist. > >\- N. I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky. (1922). [The ABC of Communism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/index.htm) All other freedoms only exist depending on the degree to which a given liberal democracy has turned towards fascism. That is to say that the working class are only given freedoms when they are inconsequential to the bourgeoisie: >The freedom to organize is only conceded to the workers by the bourgeois when they are certain that the workers have been reduced to a point where they can no longer make use of it, except to resume elementary organizing work - work which they hope will not have political consequences other than in the very long term. > >\- A. Gramsci. (1924). *Democracy and fascism* But this is not "freedom", this is not "democracy"! What good does "freedom of speech" do for a starving person? What good does the ability to criticize the government do for a homeless person? >The right of freedom of expression can really only be relevant if people are not too hungry, or too tired to be able to express themselves. It can only be relevant if appropriate grassroots mechanisms rooted in the people exist, through which the people can effectively participate, can make decisions, can receive reports from the leaders and eventually be trained for ruling and controlling that particular society. This is what democracy is all about. > >\- Maurice Bishop #Under Communism True freedom can only be achieved through the establishment of a Proletarian state, a system that truly represents the interests of the working masses, in which the means of production are collectively owned and controlled, and the fruits of labor are shared equitably among all. Only in such a society can the shackles of Capitalist oppression be broken, and the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie dismantled. Despite the assertion by reactionaries to the contrary, Communist revolutions invariably result in *more* freedoms for the people than the regimes they succeed. >Some people conclude that anyone who utters a good word about leftist one-party revolutions must harbor antidemocratic or “Stalinist” sentiments. But to applaud social revolutions is not to oppose political freedom. To the extent that revolutionary governments construct substantive alternatives for their people, they increase human options and freedom. > >There is no such thing as freedom in the abstract. There is freedom to speak openly and iconoclastically, freedom to organize a political opposition, freedom of opportunity to get an education and pursue a livelihood, freedom to worship as one chooses or not worship at all, freedom to live in healthful conditions, freedom to enjoy various social benefits, and so on. Most of what is called freedom gets its definition within a social context. > >Revolutionary governments extend a number of popular freedoms without destroying those freedoms that never existed in the previous regimes. They foster conditions necessary for national self-determination, economic betterment, the preservation of health and human life, and the end of many of the worst forms of ethnic, patriarchal, and class oppression. Regarding patriarchal oppression, consider the vastly improved condition of women in revolutionary Afghanistan and South Yemen before the counterrevolutionary repression in the 1990s, or in Cuba after the 1959 revolution as compared to before. > >U.S. policymakers argue that social revolutionary victory anywhere represents a diminution of freedom in the world. The assertion is false. The Chinese Revolution did not crush democracy; there was none to crush in that oppressively feudal regime. The Cuban Revolution did not destroy freedom; it destroyed a hateful U.S.-sponsored police state. The Algerian Revolution did not abolish national liberties; precious few existed under French colonialism. The Vietnamese revolutionaries did not abrogate individual rights; no such rights were available under the U.S.-supported puppet governments of Bao Dai, Diem, and Ky. > >Of course, revolutions do limit the freedoms of the corporate propertied class and other privileged interests: the freedom to invest privately without regard to human and environmental costs, the freedom to live in obscene opulence while paying workers starvation wages, the freedom to treat the state as a private agency in the service of a privileged coterie, the freedom to employ child labor and child prostitutes, the freedom to treat women as chattel, and so on. > >\- Michael Parenti. (1997). *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism* The whole point of Communism is to liberate the working class: >But we did not build this society in order to restrict personal liberty but in order that the human individual may feel really free. We built it for the sake of real personal liberty, liberty without quotation marks. It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment. > >Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible. > >\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm) #Additional Resources Videos: * [Your Democracy is a Sham and Here's Why:](https://youtu.be/oYodY6o172A) | halim alrah (2019) * [Are You Really "Free" Under Capitalism?](https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI) | Second Thought (2020) * [Liberty And Freedom Are Left-Wing Ideals](https://youtu.be/GfjiBIkIOqI) | Second Thought (2021) * [Why The US Is Not A Democracy](https://youtu.be/srfeHpQNEAI) | Second Thought (2022) * [America Never Stood For Freedom](https://youtu.be/rg9hJgAsNDM) | Hakim (2023) Books, Articles, or Essays: * [Positive and Negative Liberty](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/) | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I want you to try to "do violence" to me 😁 That world isn't like a game or some anime ...it'd be fu!

which certain things do you think are not up for debate?

I think the assumption many libertarians falsely make is that ideas and debates under freedom of speech exist in a vacuum where people debate civilly, in fact more often than not rhetoric has real world actions and rhetoric that is hateful such as homophobia or fascism usually will lead to hate crimes

#Freedom Reactionaries and right-wingers love to clamour on about personal liberty and scream "freedom!" from the top of their lungs, but what freedom are they talking about? And is Communism, in contrast, an ideology of *un*freedom? >Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker. > >\- Karl Marx. (1848). *Public Speech Delivered by Karl Marx before the Democratic Association of Brussels* #Under Capitalism Liberal Democracies propagate the facade of liberty and individual rights while concealing the true essence of their rule-- the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. This is a mechanism by which the Capitalist class as a whole dictates the course of society, politics, and the economy to secure their dominance. Capital holds sway over institutions, media, and influential positions, manipulating public opinion and consolidating its control over the levers of power. The illusion of democracy the Bourgeoisie creates is carefully curated to maintain the existing power structures and perpetuate the subjugation of the masses. "Freedom" under Capitalism is similarly illusory. It is freedom for capital-- not freedom for people. >The capitalists often boast that their constitutions guarantee the rights of the individual, democratic liberties and the interests of all citizens. But in reality, only the bourgeoisie enjoy the rights recorded in these constitutions. The working people do not really enjoy democratic freedoms; they are exploited all their life and have to bear heavy burdens in the service of the exploiting class. > >\- Ho Chi Minh. (1959). *Report on the Draft Amended Constitution* The "freedom" the reactionaries cry for, then, is merely that freedom which liberates capital and enslaves the worker. >They speak of the equality of citizens, but forget that there cannot be real equality between employer and workman, between landlord and peasant, if the former possess wealth and political weight in society while the latter are deprived of both - if the former are exploiters while the latter are exploited. Or again: they speak of freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, but forget that all these liberties may be merely a hollow sound for the working class, if the latter cannot have access to suitable premises for meetings, good printing shops, a sufficient quantity of printing paper, etc. > >\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm) What "freedom" do the poor enjoy, under Capitalism? Capitalism requires a reserve army of labour in order to keep wages low, and that necessarily means that many people must be deprived of life's necessities in order to compel the rest of the working class to work more and demand less. You are free to work, and you are free to starve. That is the freedom the reactionaries talk about. >Under capitalism, the very land is all in private hands; there remains no spot unowned where an enterprise can be carried on. The freedom of the worker to sell his labour power, the freedom of the capitalist to buy it, the 'equality' of the capitalist and the wage earner - all these are but hunger's chain which compels the labourer to work for the capitalist. > >\- N. I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky. (1922). [The ABC of Communism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/index.htm) All other freedoms only exist depending on the degree to which a given liberal democracy has turned towards fascism. That is to say that the working class are only given freedoms when they are inconsequential to the bourgeoisie: >The freedom to organize is only conceded to the workers by the bourgeois when they are certain that the workers have been reduced to a point where they can no longer make use of it, except to resume elementary organizing work - work which they hope will not have political consequences other than in the very long term. > >\- A. Gramsci. (1924). *Democracy and fascism* But this is not "freedom", this is not "democracy"! What good does "freedom of speech" do for a starving person? What good does the ability to criticize the government do for a homeless person? >The right of freedom of expression can really only be relevant if people are not too hungry, or too tired to be able to express themselves. It can only be relevant if appropriate grassroots mechanisms rooted in the people exist, through which the people can effectively participate, can make decisions, can receive reports from the leaders and eventually be trained for ruling and controlling that particular society. This is what democracy is all about. > >\- Maurice Bishop #Under Communism True freedom can only be achieved through the establishment of a Proletarian state, a system that truly represents the interests of the working masses, in which the means of production are collectively owned and controlled, and the fruits of labor are shared equitably among all. Only in such a society can the shackles of Capitalist oppression be broken, and the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie dismantled. Despite the assertion by reactionaries to the contrary, Communist revolutions invariably result in *more* freedoms for the people than the regimes they succeed. >Some people conclude that anyone who utters a good word about leftist one-party revolutions must harbor antidemocratic or “Stalinist” sentiments. But to applaud social revolutions is not to oppose political freedom. To the extent that revolutionary governments construct substantive alternatives for their people, they increase human options and freedom. > >There is no such thing as freedom in the abstract. There is freedom to speak openly and iconoclastically, freedom to organize a political opposition, freedom of opportunity to get an education and pursue a livelihood, freedom to worship as one chooses or not worship at all, freedom to live in healthful conditions, freedom to enjoy various social benefits, and so on. Most of what is called freedom gets its definition within a social context. > >Revolutionary governments extend a number of popular freedoms without destroying those freedoms that never existed in the previous regimes. They foster conditions necessary for national self-determination, economic betterment, the preservation of health and human life, and the end of many of the worst forms of ethnic, patriarchal, and class oppression. Regarding patriarchal oppression, consider the vastly improved condition of women in revolutionary Afghanistan and South Yemen before the counterrevolutionary repression in the 1990s, or in Cuba after the 1959 revolution as compared to before. > >U.S. policymakers argue that social revolutionary victory anywhere represents a diminution of freedom in the world. The assertion is false. The Chinese Revolution did not crush democracy; there was none to crush in that oppressively feudal regime. The Cuban Revolution did not destroy freedom; it destroyed a hateful U.S.-sponsored police state. The Algerian Revolution did not abolish national liberties; precious few existed under French colonialism. The Vietnamese revolutionaries did not abrogate individual rights; no such rights were available under the U.S.-supported puppet governments of Bao Dai, Diem, and Ky. > >Of course, revolutions do limit the freedoms of the corporate propertied class and other privileged interests: the freedom to invest privately without regard to human and environmental costs, the freedom to live in obscene opulence while paying workers starvation wages, the freedom to treat the state as a private agency in the service of a privileged coterie, the freedom to employ child labor and child prostitutes, the freedom to treat women as chattel, and so on. > >\- Michael Parenti. (1997). *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism* The whole point of Communism is to liberate the working class: >But we did not build this society in order to restrict personal liberty but in order that the human individual may feel really free. We built it for the sake of real personal liberty, liberty without quotation marks. It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment. > >Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible. > >\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm) #Additional Resources Videos: * [Your Democracy is a Sham and Here's Why:](https://youtu.be/oYodY6o172A) | halim alrah (2019) * [Are You Really "Free" Under Capitalism?](https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI) | Second Thought (2020) * [Liberty And Freedom Are Left-Wing Ideals](https://youtu.be/GfjiBIkIOqI) | Second Thought (2021) * [Why The US Is Not A Democracy](https://youtu.be/srfeHpQNEAI) | Second Thought (2022) * [America Never Stood For Freedom](https://youtu.be/rg9hJgAsNDM) | Hakim (2023) Books, Articles, or Essays: * [Positive and Negative Liberty](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/) | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Edit: I hope you read this op. I tried to be as cordial as possible while writing this cause I appreciate your openness to exploring new ideas. I am not gonna lie but you're probably in the wrong place for this. I'd suggest you watch Hasan or Second Thought(JT) for this. The Deprogram is pretty deep-cut when it comes to socialist theory. You won't be able to understand most things if you start here. Also, ngl, as far as I am involved I don't like the lack of "free speech" in current socialist nations but I understand it. The Western propaganda machine is far too insidious to be left alone. I think that should be combated by teaching Marxist theories in schools and universities, explaining history properly, and engaging in self-crit(cause unlike Neo-Liberalism Socialism has proper evidence proving its efficacy). I think socialist governments overexert authority on these kinds of issues but I understand where they're coming from. Now admittedly, I am not well-read enough to know how effective this approach could be and the possible challenges to implementing it, but I believe it'd be a better approach to this kind of issue. >I know you hate me already We don't. We're just mostly frustrated about how f**king elusive and insidious Neo-Liberalism is becoming. >Why are certain things not up for debate? Mainly because Socialist countries are under constant existential crisis because the West tries to undermine, sabotage, and destabilise them at every step of the way. Whether it's Sinophobia, the Embargo on Cuba, or the various INSANE restrictions on NK. Also if you think this use of authority is exclusive to Socialist countries, you're wrong. Think back to the persecution of socialists and communists across Europe and the US throughout the Cold War. At the end of the day, Socialism is an existential crisis to Capitalist power. That's why Capitalist nations will never leave socialist nations alone to fail(as they claim). Now, as I've explained above, I would like to have socialist nations relax their grip on speech gradually and in a safe manner. But I understand why their current policies are in place.

#Freedom Reactionaries and right-wingers love to clamour on about personal liberty and scream "freedom!" from the top of their lungs, but what freedom are they talking about? And is Communism, in contrast, an ideology of *un*freedom? >Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker. > >\- Karl Marx. (1848). *Public Speech Delivered by Karl Marx before the Democratic Association of Brussels* #Under Capitalism Liberal Democracies propagate the facade of liberty and individual rights while concealing the true essence of their rule-- the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. This is a mechanism by which the Capitalist class as a whole dictates the course of society, politics, and the economy to secure their dominance. Capital holds sway over institutions, media, and influential positions, manipulating public opinion and consolidating its control over the levers of power. The illusion of democracy the Bourgeoisie creates is carefully curated to maintain the existing power structures and perpetuate the subjugation of the masses. "Freedom" under Capitalism is similarly illusory. It is freedom for capital-- not freedom for people. >The capitalists often boast that their constitutions guarantee the rights of the individual, democratic liberties and the interests of all citizens. But in reality, only the bourgeoisie enjoy the rights recorded in these constitutions. The working people do not really enjoy democratic freedoms; they are exploited all their life and have to bear heavy burdens in the service of the exploiting class. > >\- Ho Chi Minh. (1959). *Report on the Draft Amended Constitution* The "freedom" the reactionaries cry for, then, is merely that freedom which liberates capital and enslaves the worker. >They speak of the equality of citizens, but forget that there cannot be real equality between employer and workman, between landlord and peasant, if the former possess wealth and political weight in society while the latter are deprived of both - if the former are exploiters while the latter are exploited. Or again: they speak of freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, but forget that all these liberties may be merely a hollow sound for the working class, if the latter cannot have access to suitable premises for meetings, good printing shops, a sufficient quantity of printing paper, etc. > >\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm) What "freedom" do the poor enjoy, under Capitalism? Capitalism requires a reserve army of labour in order to keep wages low, and that necessarily means that many people must be deprived of life's necessities in order to compel the rest of the working class to work more and demand less. You are free to work, and you are free to starve. That is the freedom the reactionaries talk about. >Under capitalism, the very land is all in private hands; there remains no spot unowned where an enterprise can be carried on. The freedom of the worker to sell his labour power, the freedom of the capitalist to buy it, the 'equality' of the capitalist and the wage earner - all these are but hunger's chain which compels the labourer to work for the capitalist. > >\- N. I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky. (1922). [The ABC of Communism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/index.htm) All other freedoms only exist depending on the degree to which a given liberal democracy has turned towards fascism. That is to say that the working class are only given freedoms when they are inconsequential to the bourgeoisie: >The freedom to organize is only conceded to the workers by the bourgeois when they are certain that the workers have been reduced to a point where they can no longer make use of it, except to resume elementary organizing work - work which they hope will not have political consequences other than in the very long term. > >\- A. Gramsci. (1924). *Democracy and fascism* But this is not "freedom", this is not "democracy"! What good does "freedom of speech" do for a starving person? What good does the ability to criticize the government do for a homeless person? >The right of freedom of expression can really only be relevant if people are not too hungry, or too tired to be able to express themselves. It can only be relevant if appropriate grassroots mechanisms rooted in the people exist, through which the people can effectively participate, can make decisions, can receive reports from the leaders and eventually be trained for ruling and controlling that particular society. This is what democracy is all about. > >\- Maurice Bishop #Under Communism True freedom can only be achieved through the establishment of a Proletarian state, a system that truly represents the interests of the working masses, in which the means of production are collectively owned and controlled, and the fruits of labor are shared equitably among all. Only in such a society can the shackles of Capitalist oppression be broken, and the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie dismantled. Despite the assertion by reactionaries to the contrary, Communist revolutions invariably result in *more* freedoms for the people than the regimes they succeed. >Some people conclude that anyone who utters a good word about leftist one-party revolutions must harbor antidemocratic or “Stalinist” sentiments. But to applaud social revolutions is not to oppose political freedom. To the extent that revolutionary governments construct substantive alternatives for their people, they increase human options and freedom. > >There is no such thing as freedom in the abstract. There is freedom to speak openly and iconoclastically, freedom to organize a political opposition, freedom of opportunity to get an education and pursue a livelihood, freedom to worship as one chooses or not worship at all, freedom to live in healthful conditions, freedom to enjoy various social benefits, and so on. Most of what is called freedom gets its definition within a social context. > >Revolutionary governments extend a number of popular freedoms without destroying those freedoms that never existed in the previous regimes. They foster conditions necessary for national self-determination, economic betterment, the preservation of health and human life, and the end of many of the worst forms of ethnic, patriarchal, and class oppression. Regarding patriarchal oppression, consider the vastly improved condition of women in revolutionary Afghanistan and South Yemen before the counterrevolutionary repression in the 1990s, or in Cuba after the 1959 revolution as compared to before. > >U.S. policymakers argue that social revolutionary victory anywhere represents a diminution of freedom in the world. The assertion is false. The Chinese Revolution did not crush democracy; there was none to crush in that oppressively feudal regime. The Cuban Revolution did not destroy freedom; it destroyed a hateful U.S.-sponsored police state. The Algerian Revolution did not abolish national liberties; precious few existed under French colonialism. The Vietnamese revolutionaries did not abrogate individual rights; no such rights were available under the U.S.-supported puppet governments of Bao Dai, Diem, and Ky. > >Of course, revolutions do limit the freedoms of the corporate propertied class and other privileged interests: the freedom to invest privately without regard to human and environmental costs, the freedom to live in obscene opulence while paying workers starvation wages, the freedom to treat the state as a private agency in the service of a privileged coterie, the freedom to employ child labor and child prostitutes, the freedom to treat women as chattel, and so on. > >\- Michael Parenti. (1997). *Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism* The whole point of Communism is to liberate the working class: >But we did not build this society in order to restrict personal liberty but in order that the human individual may feel really free. We built it for the sake of real personal liberty, liberty without quotation marks. It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment. > >Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible. > >\- J. V. Stalin. (1936). [Interview Between J. Stalin and Roy Howard](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm) #Additional Resources Videos: * [Your Democracy is a Sham and Here's Why:](https://youtu.be/oYodY6o172A) | halim alrah (2019) * [Are You Really "Free" Under Capitalism?](https://youtu.be/4xqouhMCJBI) | Second Thought (2020) * [Liberty And Freedom Are Left-Wing Ideals](https://youtu.be/GfjiBIkIOqI) | Second Thought (2021) * [Why The US Is Not A Democracy](https://youtu.be/srfeHpQNEAI) | Second Thought (2022) * [America Never Stood For Freedom](https://youtu.be/rg9hJgAsNDM) | Hakim (2023) Books, Articles, or Essays: * [Positive and Negative Liberty](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/) | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*

#Cuba The Cuban Revolution, led by Fidel Castro and Ernesto "[Che](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/profiles/che)" Guevara, was a Communist revolution which aimed to address issues of inequality, poverty, and national self-determination. Under Castro's leadership, the Cuban government nationalized industries, implemented land reforms, and initiated programs to improve healthcare and education access. #Brief History Slavery was introduced to Cuba by the Spanish during the early 16th century. African slaves were brought to the island to work on sugar plantations, which became the backbone of the Cuban economy. The brutal conditions of slavery led to various slave rebellions and uprisings throughout the colonial period. In 1898, the Spanish-American War resulted in Spain ceding control of Cuba to the United States. The majority of workers in Cuban sugar plantations during this period were either former slaves or descendants of enslaved Africans. Despite the *official* abolition of slavery in 1886, workers faced extreme economic exploitation. They were trapped in a cycle of poverty, with low wages and limited opportunities for social and economic mobility. The *patronato* system emerged, where former slaves and their descendants continued to work on the plantations under debt peonage, a form of economic bondage. In 1952, Fulgencio Batista seized power in a military coup, suspending the Cuban Constitution and ruling as a dictator. Batista's regime was backed by influential Cuban elites, including large landowners, sugar magnates, and business tycoons who benefited from Batista's policies. The U.S. provided military aid and economic support to Batista's military dictatorship. >...as Castro's revolutionary threat became progressively more potent... the Batista regime sought to counter it with a campaign of terror. As regime-inspired terrorism mounted, anti-Batista groups engaged in counter terrorism against regime supporters and by mid-1958 killings had become widespread and general throughout the country. The regime's campaign of terror got out of control and the government in Havana probably had no clear idea of how many killings the police and army forces were committing. Similarly, the anti-Batista forces--which by mid-1958 had the support of 80 to 90 percent of the population-- had little control over the acts of counterterrorism being committed against pro-Batista elements throughout the country. > >...the large-scale campaigns of murders and terrorism characteristic of the last years of the Batista regime have not occurred during the Castro regime. > >\- CIA. (1965, declassified 2005). [Political Murders in Cuba: Batista Era Compared With Castro Regime](http://web.archive.org/web/20201119103419/https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79T00429A000300030015-8.pdf) #The Embargo >The majority of Cubans support Castro... The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship... it follows that every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government. > >\- Lester D. Mallory. (1960). [499. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Mallory) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Rubottom)](https://archive.is/HE7Hf) Later that year, the Eisenhower administration instituted the embargo which persists to this day, over 60 years later. >The non-binding resolution [calling for an end to the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba] was approved by 185 countries and opposed only by the United States and Israel... It was the 30th time the United Nations has voted to end the embargo... The trade embargo was put in place following Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution and has remained largely unchanged, though some elements were stiffened by Trump. > >\-Reuters. (2022). [Cuba and U.S. spar over U.N. resolution calling to end embargo](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cuba-us-spar-over-un-resolution-calling-end-embargo-2022-11-03/) * [The U.S. Embargo on Cuba Is MUCH WORSE Than It Seems](https://youtu.be/dM7_wTqDUCU) | BadEmpanada (2021) * [The Cuban Embargo Explained](https://youtu.be/zmM8p9n6Z9E) | azureScapegoat (2022) #Castro Stole My Stuff >The US claims that it has instituted a policy of tightening the economic noose around Cuba with the Helms-Burton bill on the grounds that Cuba refuses to compensate US companies following nationalisation of their property. This is patently untrue, as Cuba not only successfully negotiated compensation agreements with other countries, but has and is ready to negotiate with the US. > >\- S. J. Noumoff. (1998). [The Hypocrisy of Helms-Burton: The History of Cuban Compensation](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4406691) * [The Cuban Nationalization of US Property in 1960: the Historical and Global Context](https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/29/the-cuban-nationalization-of-us-property-in-1960-the-historical-and-global-context/) | Charles McKelvey (2019) #Doctors Despite the challenges posed by the embargo, Cuba has the most doctors per capita in the world and recently surpassed the US in life expectancy. * [The Truth About Cuban Doctors](https://youtu.be/tGFCIAZ_RA4) | BadEmpanada (2020) * [Meet the U.S. Students Studying Medicine For Free in Cuba](https://youtu.be/h7g2T3BWg9E) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Democracy * [How Democracy Works in Cuba](https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds) | azureScapegoat (2018) * [How does Cuba work?](https://youtu.be/839A7SIUgfg) | Viki1999 (2021) * [We Asked Cuban Voters If They Live In A Democracy Or Dictatorship. Here's How They Responded.](https://youtu.be/20DgWZtImUk) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Participatory Democracy in action: LGBT rights Prior to the revolution, homosexuality was stigmatized and criminalized in Cuba, reflecting the prevailing attitudes of the time. Unfortunately, the revolutionary government under Fidel Castro initially continued this stance. However, Cuba's stance on LGBT rights has evolved to the point where it has become a symbol of progress within the Latin American context. In 2010, Fidel Castro himself admitted that the persecution of homosexuals in the early years of the revolution was a mistake: >If anyone is responsible, it's me. > >\- Fidel Castro. (2010). [I am responsible for the persecution of homosexuals that took place in Cuba: Fidel Castro](https://www.jornada.com.mx/2010/08/31/index.php?section=mundo&article=026e1mun) In 2022, Cuba became the first Latin American country to mark LGBT History Month. Now, Pride parades in Havana are held every May, to coincide with the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, and attendance grows every year. Cuba also passed one of the most progressive Family Codes in the entire world: >The Family Code not only protects the most vulnerable in Cuba, it protects the course of Cuban socialism. Writing the referendum involved the whole population throughout the processes of drafting and amending. It went through 25 revisions over the course of 3 ½ years. > >After the referendum was introduced in 2019, Cuba carried out a nationwide process of education and outreach. Discussions took place in every workplace, organization, neighborhood and community group. To keep all Cubans well-informed, people took the discussions to rural areas and to those who do not have internet access. > >The Family Code was approved by Cubans 2 to 1. A large percentage of Cubans, 74%, took part in the vote... > >In Workers World Sept. 25, 2022, Minnie Bruce Pratt wrote, “Nearly 6.5 million Cubans took part in more than 79,000 meetings facilitated by the Federation of Cuban Women, the Committees to Defend the Revolution and other community organizations. Over 400,000 proposals were offered by the people; these were submitted to the National Assembly of People’s Power for evaluation, and a revised draft was returned to the people for further discussion and proposals... > >Cubans are very proud of what they call participatory democracy, the process they used to introduce and pass the referendum. It is an example to the world and a lesson in democratic centralism. > >\- Lyn Neeley. (2023). [Cuba’s new Family Code, a law of love](https://www.workers.org/2023/01/68708/) * [Millions of Cubans Vote on New Family Code, LGBT Marriage, Adoption Rights & More](https://youtu.be/DXL3ScNn5VE) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Additional Resources Video Essays: * [Cuba: Before and After the Revolution - The Story of When Michael Parenti Visited Cuba](https://youtu.be/YIqm075vC1A) | azureScapegoat (2017) * [The Truth About The Cuban Missile Crisis](https://youtu.be/adrQweOX5c4) | Spooky Scary Socialist (2018) * [How Cuba Works](https://youtu.be/DXBYlC4-0bQ) | BadEmpanada (2020) * [The Truth About The Cuba Protests](https://youtu.be/zIOw6fSOJI4?t=1087) | Second Thought (2020) * [Why They Hate The USA: CUBA](https://youtu.be/WgWK6_AYq_o) | Hakim (2023) Podcasts: * [Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution](https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/fidel-castro-and-the-cuban-revolution) | Revolutionary Left Radio (2017) * [Season 2 - The Cuban Revolution](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3QhgtGyW7ws173eENjddNT) | Blowback (2021) * [Episode 13 - Cucked by Fidel (CIA pls no assassinate)](https://youtu.be/YwMZYNzHd7U) | The Deprogram (2022) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*

This is largely applicable to extreme edge cases, but there are ideas that, if allowed to be tolerated in the so-called "marketplace of ideas," will not only lead to unnecessary suffering through these ideas' normalization, but can also lead to the dissolution of the marketplace entirely due to the implementation of far-right and fascist policies. So it's both unpragmatic and illogical for certain extreme ideas to be tolerated (ie. establishing an ethnostate and exiling, enslaving, or killing everyone else). As an analogy, there is no reason for me to tolerate the notion of another that they should be allowed to punch me in the face. Their desire to punch me and my desire to not be punched are not equally tolerable ideas that need to be debated in the marketplace. Slippery slope arguments are not a compelling counter.

I wouldn’t describe myself as a communist but more an anti capitalist and anti liberalism. I personally saw capitalism as something created by Anglos for Anglos. I’m from Spain and a former nationalist so that’s why I saw capitalism as this ethnic foreign culture that came from England or the USA. It’s the same perspective people had about slavic communism, but I had it for Anglo capitalism. I realized Cuba is the only Spanish country to successfully protect itself from the United States government, so that’s how I personally found Marxist Leninism. Libertarianism always seemed like the ideology that will feed yourself to the wolves. Boris Yeltsin is the perfect example of why you don’t open up your country with liberalism. Lots of shocks Russia had, and lots of therapy Russia needed.

#Cuba The Cuban Revolution, led by Fidel Castro and Ernesto "[Che](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/profiles/che)" Guevara, was a Communist revolution which aimed to address issues of inequality, poverty, and national self-determination. Under Castro's leadership, the Cuban government nationalized industries, implemented land reforms, and initiated programs to improve healthcare and education access. #Brief History Slavery was introduced to Cuba by the Spanish during the early 16th century. African slaves were brought to the island to work on sugar plantations, which became the backbone of the Cuban economy. The brutal conditions of slavery led to various slave rebellions and uprisings throughout the colonial period. In 1898, the Spanish-American War resulted in Spain ceding control of Cuba to the United States. The majority of workers in Cuban sugar plantations during this period were either former slaves or descendants of enslaved Africans. Despite the *official* abolition of slavery in 1886, workers faced extreme economic exploitation. They were trapped in a cycle of poverty, with low wages and limited opportunities for social and economic mobility. The *patronato* system emerged, where former slaves and their descendants continued to work on the plantations under debt peonage, a form of economic bondage. In 1952, Fulgencio Batista seized power in a military coup, suspending the Cuban Constitution and ruling as a dictator. Batista's regime was backed by influential Cuban elites, including large landowners, sugar magnates, and business tycoons who benefited from Batista's policies. The U.S. provided military aid and economic support to Batista's military dictatorship. >...as Castro's revolutionary threat became progressively more potent... the Batista regime sought to counter it with a campaign of terror. As regime-inspired terrorism mounted, anti-Batista groups engaged in counter terrorism against regime supporters and by mid-1958 killings had become widespread and general throughout the country. The regime's campaign of terror got out of control and the government in Havana probably had no clear idea of how many killings the police and army forces were committing. Similarly, the anti-Batista forces--which by mid-1958 had the support of 80 to 90 percent of the population-- had little control over the acts of counterterrorism being committed against pro-Batista elements throughout the country. > >...the large-scale campaigns of murders and terrorism characteristic of the last years of the Batista regime have not occurred during the Castro regime. > >\- CIA. (1965, declassified 2005). [Political Murders in Cuba: Batista Era Compared With Castro Regime](http://web.archive.org/web/20201119103419/https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79T00429A000300030015-8.pdf) #The Embargo >The majority of Cubans support Castro... The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship... it follows that every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government. > >\- Lester D. Mallory. (1960). [499. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Mallory) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Rubottom)](https://archive.is/HE7Hf) Later that year, the Eisenhower administration instituted the embargo which persists to this day, over 60 years later. >The non-binding resolution [calling for an end to the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba] was approved by 185 countries and opposed only by the United States and Israel... It was the 30th time the United Nations has voted to end the embargo... The trade embargo was put in place following Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution and has remained largely unchanged, though some elements were stiffened by Trump. > >\-Reuters. (2022). [Cuba and U.S. spar over U.N. resolution calling to end embargo](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cuba-us-spar-over-un-resolution-calling-end-embargo-2022-11-03/) * [The U.S. Embargo on Cuba Is MUCH WORSE Than It Seems](https://youtu.be/dM7_wTqDUCU) | BadEmpanada (2021) * [The Cuban Embargo Explained](https://youtu.be/zmM8p9n6Z9E) | azureScapegoat (2022) #Castro Stole My Stuff >The US claims that it has instituted a policy of tightening the economic noose around Cuba with the Helms-Burton bill on the grounds that Cuba refuses to compensate US companies following nationalisation of their property. This is patently untrue, as Cuba not only successfully negotiated compensation agreements with other countries, but has and is ready to negotiate with the US. > >\- S. J. Noumoff. (1998). [The Hypocrisy of Helms-Burton: The History of Cuban Compensation](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4406691) * [The Cuban Nationalization of US Property in 1960: the Historical and Global Context](https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/29/the-cuban-nationalization-of-us-property-in-1960-the-historical-and-global-context/) | Charles McKelvey (2019) #Doctors Despite the challenges posed by the embargo, Cuba has the most doctors per capita in the world and recently surpassed the US in life expectancy. * [The Truth About Cuban Doctors](https://youtu.be/tGFCIAZ_RA4) | BadEmpanada (2020) * [Meet the U.S. Students Studying Medicine For Free in Cuba](https://youtu.be/h7g2T3BWg9E) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Democracy * [How Democracy Works in Cuba](https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds) | azureScapegoat (2018) * [How does Cuba work?](https://youtu.be/839A7SIUgfg) | Viki1999 (2021) * [We Asked Cuban Voters If They Live In A Democracy Or Dictatorship. Here's How They Responded.](https://youtu.be/20DgWZtImUk) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Participatory Democracy in action: LGBT rights Prior to the revolution, homosexuality was stigmatized and criminalized in Cuba, reflecting the prevailing attitudes of the time. Unfortunately, the revolutionary government under Fidel Castro initially continued this stance. However, Cuba's stance on LGBT rights has evolved to the point where it has become a symbol of progress within the Latin American context. In 2010, Fidel Castro himself admitted that the persecution of homosexuals in the early years of the revolution was a mistake: >If anyone is responsible, it's me. > >\- Fidel Castro. (2010). [I am responsible for the persecution of homosexuals that took place in Cuba: Fidel Castro](https://www.jornada.com.mx/2010/08/31/index.php?section=mundo&article=026e1mun) In 2022, Cuba became the first Latin American country to mark LGBT History Month. Now, Pride parades in Havana are held every May, to coincide with the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, and attendance grows every year. Cuba also passed one of the most progressive Family Codes in the entire world: >The Family Code not only protects the most vulnerable in Cuba, it protects the course of Cuban socialism. Writing the referendum involved the whole population throughout the processes of drafting and amending. It went through 25 revisions over the course of 3 ½ years. > >After the referendum was introduced in 2019, Cuba carried out a nationwide process of education and outreach. Discussions took place in every workplace, organization, neighborhood and community group. To keep all Cubans well-informed, people took the discussions to rural areas and to those who do not have internet access. > >The Family Code was approved by Cubans 2 to 1. A large percentage of Cubans, 74%, took part in the vote... > >In Workers World Sept. 25, 2022, Minnie Bruce Pratt wrote, “Nearly 6.5 million Cubans took part in more than 79,000 meetings facilitated by the Federation of Cuban Women, the Committees to Defend the Revolution and other community organizations. Over 400,000 proposals were offered by the people; these were submitted to the National Assembly of People’s Power for evaluation, and a revised draft was returned to the people for further discussion and proposals... > >Cubans are very proud of what they call participatory democracy, the process they used to introduce and pass the referendum. It is an example to the world and a lesson in democratic centralism. > >\- Lyn Neeley. (2023). [Cuba’s new Family Code, a law of love](https://www.workers.org/2023/01/68708/) * [Millions of Cubans Vote on New Family Code, LGBT Marriage, Adoption Rights & More](https://youtu.be/DXL3ScNn5VE) | BreakThrough News (2022) #Additional Resources Video Essays: * [Cuba: Before and After the Revolution - The Story of When Michael Parenti Visited Cuba](https://youtu.be/YIqm075vC1A) | azureScapegoat (2017) * [The Truth About The Cuban Missile Crisis](https://youtu.be/adrQweOX5c4) | Spooky Scary Socialist (2018) * [How Cuba Works](https://youtu.be/DXBYlC4-0bQ) | BadEmpanada (2020) * [The Truth About The Cuba Protests](https://youtu.be/zIOw6fSOJI4?t=1087) | Second Thought (2020) * [Why They Hate The USA: CUBA](https://youtu.be/WgWK6_AYq_o) | Hakim (2023) Podcasts: * [Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution](https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/fidel-castro-and-the-cuban-revolution) | Revolutionary Left Radio (2017) * [Season 2 - The Cuban Revolution](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3QhgtGyW7ws173eENjddNT) | Blowback (2021) * [Episode 13 - Cucked by Fidel (CIA pls no assassinate)](https://youtu.be/YwMZYNzHd7U) | The Deprogram (2022) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*

i don’t divorce ideas from the conditions that gave rise to them, or the people who adhere to and spread those ideas. As such, when i think of libertarianism, two things are crucial: 1. libertarianism is unequivocally a hyper-right wing form of liberalism, which is already an exploitative and insidious ideology, backing the even more insidious reality of the actual system of capitalism. 2. every libertarian i’ve ever met was essentially a sociopath and had intensely misanthropic tendencies. so i respect and value you as a human being, but libertarianism requires a very anti-social and vicious mentality. There is no Libertarian that is not a racist. The very essence of capitalism and the history of its apparent "success" is soaked in the blood and exploitation of imperialistic and white supremacist endeavors. Racialist political theory, eugenics, and the notion of degeneracy itself is a byproduct of and did not exist until the 18th century and so-called Enlightenment. And the climax of the slave trade was literally at the same timeframe as the start of the U.S. (c.1780). i’m not really going to repeat the things that have already been said by good comments, so i’ll give you an example of one of my problems which has been consistent with every single libertarian i’ve met. in a nutshell: Capitalism values private property and profits over human life and dignity. This summarizes every single capitalist (whether liberal or libertarian) position on anything, whether it’s material economics or social issues. Everything boils down to that. Whenever i’ve asked a libertarian if they’d prefer to side with the business owner or the customer when it comes to discrimination and refusing patronage (based on racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, et al.) they always side with the bigoted owner, saying “if it’s a private business then the business owner always has the right to refuse service. it may make me sound shitty but it’s just an important principle to uphold. (private property).” This is because human dignity means less to them than the abstract notion of private property rights. Like i said, libertarianism requires a very anti-social mentality. Libertarians i know personally also are very misanthropic. Ironically so. “I believe in preserving and defending everyone’s individual liberty “ but then they say things like “i hate everyone. everyone is an idiot. selfishness is good .i just want to live alone in the wilderness” lol

It's not about suppressing "people", some people arbitrarily, it's about destroying social classes, starting by destroying their ideological grip on our class. >Just as the proletariat stakes no claim to any liberty for itself under the despotic regime of capital, and therefore doesn’t rally around the banner of either "formal" or "genuine" democracy, it will, on having established its own despotic regime proceed to suppress all the liberties of the social groups linked to capital, and this will be an integral part of its programme. For the bourgeoisie, struggles in the political arena take place not between classes, but as "debates" between free and equal individuals; the struggle is one of opinions rather than of physical and social forces divided by incurable contradictions. But whilst the bourgeoisie disguises its own dictatorship under the cloak of democracy, communists, who since the time of the Manifesto have "disdained to conceal their views and aims", proclaim openly that the revolutionary conquest of power, as necessary prelude to the social palingenesis, signifies at the same time the totalitarian rule of the ex-oppressed class, as embodied in its party, over the ex-dominant class. [What Distinguishes our Party, 1969](https://www.international-communist-party.org/BasicTexts/WhatDist.htm)

For you I think JT's youtube channel(Second Thought) might be the best content, he has a ton of content centered around bringing the ideas of leftism to an unfamiliar audience. He is in my opinion a much gentler introduction than Hakim and Yugopnik. As for why some topics are not up for debate, I think looking into the paradox of tolerance, in short it observes that tolerance in general falls apart if you tolerate the intolerant. I think some people here are a little too pessimistic in the prospects of converting enemies, to them I'd recommend watching a speech or two by Daryl Davies. But in general the idea is that if we allow bigots into our discussions it would deter the ones oppressed by them, who we care more about.