Not butthurt at all. I just accepted that I’m not discussing with someone capable of reading a comment beyond the first sentence of it. It’s fine tho, I’m not gonna explain it again just because you refuse to read the first comment.
Let’s hold people responsible for what they say by violating freedom of speech.
Little Jimmy injured himself trying to fly like Superman, so we must hold those media execs responsible by violating freedom of expression.
Nah, shit argument: mere falsehoods do not incite imminent, unlawful harm.
The time to discuss & criticize that speech before acting is unbounded.
Any harm is the own doing & responsibility of someone failing to exercise reasonable sense of challenging unsound information & sources.
You keep sounding like a maga snowflake that doesn’t like when their words bring them consequences. It’s fine tho, I understand that you are not equipped to understand the nuances of freedom of speech and its limitations.
Calling anyone who doesn’t oppose free speech MAGA (a straw man or ad hominem fallacy) isn’t serving you.
Mere falsehoods do not constitute violations of free speech limitations (eg, true threats, defamation, imminent lawless action).
Try respecting logic.
You are trying to debate something you haven’t read in the first place. And you ask me to “respect logic”. I mean… try respecting logic?
You just seem offended by something you simply refuse to read, which is very much in line with what MAGAs do. As I said, you are not ready to discuss the limits to free speech and the concept of “consequences to what you say”.
Ah… I see… My bad, I understood it too late that I wasn’t talking with someone able to fully read a comment before making a “sharp” remark about it.
Get butthurt all you want about others not caring about & disagreeing with your point.
Someone’s lack of sense to believe anything is entirely their problem & fault. That’s no justification to violate a fundamental right.
Not butthurt at all. I just accepted that I’m not discussing with someone capable of reading a comment beyond the first sentence of it. It’s fine tho, I’m not gonna explain it again just because you refuse to read the first comment.
You don’t need to explain your delusion that critics didn’t read your comment.
“I’m a free speech absolutist who can’t read and believes that people shouldn’t be held responsible for what they say”.
You’re not a critic, you just sound awfully like a maga snowflake yelling “but muh freedom!”.
Nah, shit argument: mere falsehoods do not incite imminent, unlawful harm. The time to discuss & criticize that speech before acting is unbounded. Any harm is the own doing & responsibility of someone failing to exercise reasonable sense of challenging unsound information & sources.
You keep sounding like a maga snowflake that doesn’t like when their words bring them consequences. It’s fine tho, I understand that you are not equipped to understand the nuances of freedom of speech and its limitations.
Calling anyone who doesn’t oppose free speech MAGA (a straw man or ad hominem fallacy) isn’t serving you. Mere falsehoods do not constitute violations of free speech limitations (eg, true threats, defamation, imminent lawless action). Try respecting logic.
You are trying to debate something you haven’t read in the first place. And you ask me to “respect logic”. I mean… try respecting logic?
You just seem offended by something you simply refuse to read, which is very much in line with what MAGAs do. As I said, you are not ready to discuss the limits to free speech and the concept of “consequences to what you say”.