See this is just circular. You're not neutral. You're pro free speech when it's you doing the speaking and on your terms, but anti free speech when it offends you.
Trump offended the democrats. He's facing impeachment for incitement. He'll contend that was his freedom of speech. They'll contend elsewise. There's always a loophole.
Either you're for it completely or you're against it completely. There can be no "but muh private companies". That's called a loophole and you're slithering through it at an increasing rate.
Also, you can hate the word and you can think people shouldn't say it, you can wish they wouldn't, you can even make it clear that you wish they wouldn't.
But you can also defend the right to say it.
That said I would prefer actually egregious examples be removed because it gets pretty bad sometimes and it just ends up being a distraction
Yeah I don't disagree with that at all. Like if someone is really ott.
It's just there's a lot of facebook boomers coming here and wanting everything clean and cozy. Like no mention of jewish conspiracies.
And that clown yesterday was just talking about casual examples.
You go down the route of censorship and you end up where the country is today.
All these people arguing for it really don't understand that a little bit of this and a little bit of that leads to people wanting more.
Also have some raging leftist sleeper accounts trying to use leftist tactics too.
The fact that these people use the same tactics every time (you defend free speech even when it's repugnant that means you support the thing that's repugnant!) makes me quite irritable, and now this forum is permanently divided because of the mods.
If you're going to call an argument circular, you should include proof of your claim.
Of course, to do that, you would have had to read it, which it doesn't appear you did.
I never said the N word offends me. I defend the right for people to use it and not get crucified, and to use it in public. It really doesn't offend me; very little if anything offends me.
Trump will not argue based on freedom of speech, he will argue on their terms, as we have seen; they have used speech just as inciting of violence, and he will demonstrate that easily.
From the sounds of it, you aren't so pro-free speech either? Are you against it too, then, if you're against banning incitement of violence?
I ask again; do you believe people should be posting pornographic content on this forum? How is that any different?
lol
See this is just circular. You're not neutral. You're pro free speech when it's you doing the speaking and on your terms, but anti free speech when it offends you.
Trump offended the democrats. He's facing impeachment for incitement. He'll contend that was his freedom of speech. They'll contend elsewise. There's always a loophole.
Either you're for it completely or you're against it completely. There can be no "but muh private companies". That's called a loophole and you're slithering through it at an increasing rate.
Also, you can hate the word and you can think people shouldn't say it, you can wish they wouldn't, you can even make it clear that you wish they wouldn't.
But you can also defend the right to say it.
That said I would prefer actually egregious examples be removed because it gets pretty bad sometimes and it just ends up being a distraction
Yeah I don't disagree with that at all. Like if someone is really ott.
It's just there's a lot of facebook boomers coming here and wanting everything clean and cozy. Like no mention of jewish conspiracies. And that clown yesterday was just talking about casual examples.
You go down the route of censorship and you end up where the country is today.
All these people arguing for it really don't understand that a little bit of this and a little bit of that leads to people wanting more.
Also have some raging leftist sleeper accounts trying to use leftist tactics too.
The fact that these people use the same tactics every time (you defend free speech even when it's repugnant that means you support the thing that's repugnant!) makes me quite irritable, and now this forum is permanently divided because of the mods.
If you're going to call an argument circular, you should include proof of your claim.
Of course, to do that, you would have had to read it, which it doesn't appear you did.
I never said the N word offends me. I defend the right for people to use it and not get crucified, and to use it in public. It really doesn't offend me; very little if anything offends me.
Trump will not argue based on freedom of speech, he will argue on their terms, as we have seen; they have used speech just as inciting of violence, and he will demonstrate that easily.
From the sounds of it, you aren't so pro-free speech either? Are you against it too, then, if you're against banning incitement of violence?
I ask again; do you believe people should be posting pornographic content on this forum? How is that any different?