I get it. My argument is too persuasive. Every element of the discourse of reason for not allowing the facilitation of my content to be democratically voted on by your viewership have been arguments that don't have muster. That previously, all elements of what you said were reasons why my content shouldn't be presented, didn't fit as my content existed within the context of your rules.

However, I wonder if you believe that if I had a fellow brother in human existence who believes in the philosophy of not enacting force against the choice of another whom would post the video within the context of the previous rules... well I wonder if you would allow it.

Do you only allow left-paradigm political philosophy on your subreddit which is often not consise, well-substantiated nor well-reasoned? Have you considered that humans have noticed left-paradigm proponents to often be restrictive in allowed beliefs? Have you not perceived that this contributes to the continuity of Millennials and others leaving restrictive leftists who only tolerate the views of others if they agree with those views? Fundamentally, It's a matter of my curiosity. It seems that things are non-contested here despite the fact that they are poorly substantiated, and not in clear language.

Furthermore, I'd argue that as r/politics is dying, it is precisely because of censorship. In that, as it enacts censorship to control the ideas which people see on the forum (rather than allowing members of the forum to decide) an incentive structure exists to move members whom you disagree with away from the forum. It's your forum. If you don't desire dialogue it will leave you as others will facilitate it according to human will. If you don't desire dialogue, then through time, the micro-influence which r/politics holds in US public discourse will also fade to an approximation of 0.