A community suddenly subjected to totalitarian rule always loses its purpose, no matter what its original purpose was. History has shown us such a loss of sense of purpose repeatedly with all communistic, fascistic and socialistic countries. Closer to home we've seen a destruction of free flowing thought and creativity with the censorship of "hate speech" or "disinformation" from the likes of FB, YT, Twatter, and every other Globalist controlled forum.
While moderation is necessary for constructive conversation to move forward sometimes, censorship simply for using words or phrases is always wrong. Words and phrases have no power except what we give them. There is no such thing as universal hate speech. It is always subjective. The fact that some think that there is, is nothing more than a spell cast on us by the Luciferians.
This spell is so powerful apparently that if I type six specific letters in sequence I magically can never speak to any of you ever again. The context doesn’t seem to matter. Who I am or who I am talking to doesn’t seem to matter. Its just six letters that are, when put together more powerful and more magical than all others on the planet. This is their spell, and we chose to live under it when we start banning people for using words.
Is this the Great Awakening, or the group succumbing, once again, to the Luciferians sleep spell?
WWQD?
Your argument was a bunch of fancy words saying the N word isn't racist. You're making the argument that racial slurs should be allowed as much as people want. Do you understand that every shill will then just spam this board with racist stuff and there would be no rule to stop them? We would turn into Pol overnight and this community would die. You either haven't thought your own argument through, or are trying to damage the community.
My argument was both reasoned and pointed. This argument of yours is called a strawman.
I am making the argument that banning people JUST for using words is always wrong, and I have provided reasoning and examples to support that argument. You are extending it beyond what was intended. In fact I addressed such an extension explicitly in my original argument:
There is a difference between no moderation, and banning for using a series of letters no matter the context or reason. I have stated that difference repeatedly, you are refusing to see it.
So a sophist then. Lots of fancy talk. Absolutely zero substance.