Silencing ideas that you do not agree with does not lead to an open society. Because guess what, the less popular ideas ends up being the right one sometimes.

(In this case I agree that RT is likely propaganda, but knowing an argument you disagree with makes it easier to argue against people that make it.)

Every media is propaganda. RT is directly financed by the Kremlin just like CNN is at the behest of the current American administration. It's absurd to think any of these channels will not try to manipulate their audience.

What is certain on the other hand is that it is Russia which invaded Ukraine, a free country, at first place. What is also certain is that any news organization in Russia that doesn't follow the Kremlin's narrative is deemed criminal by Russian authorities.

While I agree with the sentiment of your comment, I do not agree that a government financed news station is in fact "just like" CNN providing favorable coverage to the current administration presumably in exchange for access or similar.

In the case of CNN, we see the collective bias of those who run the company optimizing coverage for engagement based on their assessment of the bias of those watching. In the case of RT, we literally know that guests or anchors who do not work to legitimize propaganda are at risk of physical retribution.

> RT is directly financed by the Kremlin just like CNN is at the behest of the current American administration

It's not just like at all.

In theory I agree with you, but it's not like silencing 'ideas and argument you disagree with'

Look at this: https://www.rt.com/russia/551384-russia-ukraine-nuclear-fals...

>“The SBU and the militants of the Azov Battalion are planning to blow up the reactor and accuse the Russian Armed Forces of allegedly launching a missile attack on the experimental nuclear facility,”

This isn't a discussion in which people are arguing different opinions in good faith, it's straight up manipulation to excuse killing more people.

Given that some of the Azov are literally Nazis (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/german-tv-s...), that's hardly completely beyond the realms of possibility. Or we're supposed to start giving Nazis the benefit of the doubt now just because Russia started it?

Given that Russia deployed Wagner Group in Ukraine, whose founder has SS tattoos on his neck, why unsubstantiated statements from Russia are to be believed?

Russia is also a known hotbed for neonazis. So is Alabama. Just because a region has small factions of race extremists it doesn’t mean they’re blowing up nuclear reactors.

But Russia’s history of false flag operations and whataboutism are so well-documented that it’s literally a textbook example. They’ve invaded Georgia and Ukraine before using the same exact lies. Putin’s history in Chechnya is also horrific. So you should trust Russia saying they’re coming to liberate someone as much as you should trust a certain other country coming to liberate someone: you shouldn’t.

> Russia is also a known hotbed for neonazis

Any source to it that doesn't try to stretch the meaning of pseudo-term "right-wing" to mean "neonazis"? Are there knows instances of Russia openly incorporating entities publicly identifying with neonazi rhetorics and symbolics into their government structures?

> But Russia’s history of false flag operations and whataboutism are so well-documented that it’s literally a textbook example.

Could you refer us to this documentation? Should be an interesting read.

> They’ve invaded Georgia before using the same exact lies

Are you denying the fact that Saakashvili had invaded Tskhinvali, the capital of South Osetia, trying to solve a century old ethnic conflict[1] by force, which was last time put on cold under Russia's military guarantees[2]? What lies are you referring to exactly?

1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian–Ossetian_conflict

2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sochi_agreement

I mean there’s the Wagner Group very conspicuously using a German name despite being Russian and familiar skull design acting as a paramilitary organization in Russia’s “liberation” activities. [1]

There’s the fact 90% of Ukraine was completely peaceful just a month ago other than Russian funded “separatists” in the east constantly stirring things up. [2]

Russia claimed the whole Crimea operation was soldiers on vacation until they started blowing the place up and seized it. [3]

And Russia’s detraction from its own issues is so well known it has a wiki article. [4]

You’re more transparent than you think you are.

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

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/2...

[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

Too many years of everybody and their grandma being called “literally Nazi”.

It's a quoted statement...

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”

Easily my favourite George R. R. Martin quote. We discovered why free speech is important during the 17th century in the Enlightenment period. The scientific method itself owes its existence to free speech, and the ability for any person to disagree with any other person, regardless of their class, race, age, nationality, religion, or beliefs. The same goes for democracy. Take away the fundamental principle of free speech and you undermine science and democracy.

Are evil people going to attempt to convince the suggestible that they're not evil? Of course! Contrary to common sentiment, free speech has a cost. We pay this cost gladly so that we can live in relative prosperity.

Free speech has never been absolute. RT is a state owned propaganda organ, disinformation doesn't contribute to free speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

"as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise."

this still applies. RT readers arent shooting you.

funny how the paradox of tolerance is thrown around most by the people who understand it the least.

> as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion

I mean, we obviously can't. Who's going to make them provide balanced news ? no one since they're literally part of the Russian government. You can't "counter them by rational argument" if these arguments never reach the target

What about islamist news ? Why don't we broadcast that freely ? Can't you provide rational arguments against that ? What about nazis, why are they banned in Germany ? Are you afraid of not having rational arguments ?

> funny how the paradox of tolerance is thrown around most by the people who understand it the least.

Well, I can say the same about freedom of speech...

I did not argue that free speech is absolute. Merely that we should be free to try to convince each other of our premise. Even if you really, really, really don't like the other guy. Especially then.

I caution you to so casually frame RT as an example of the paradox of tolerance. The byline makes it clear that this paradox was created and applied to situations where the tolerated eventually seized authoritarian power to silence the tolerant. RT, and as you rightly describe, Russia, has no hope of invading the U.S. and seizing this power. It's just Russia spouting Russian propaganda. Either you trust your citizens to freely exchange ideas - even those you really, really really, don't like - or you don't. I'm getting the feeling that you don't.

> Russia, has no hope of invading the U.S. and seizing this power.

Funny that you say that knowing the role of Russian propaganda during your elections but ok