2 ms·
So you're admitting you're not in favor of freedom of speech. Now we're just arguing over who you believe deserves protection, and how far that protection shoul
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
So you're admitting you're not in favor of freedom of speech. Now we're just arguing over who you believe deserves protection, and how far that protection should go.
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago> You're arguing that only the Damores of the world can express themselves... > Which boils down to you arguing that no one else should have free speech. > So you're admitting you're not in favor of freedom of speech. All you've done in this conversation is attempt to put words in my mouth while at the same time saying I'm the one not speaking in good faith. I see no benefit to continuing this discussion. I've presented my reasoning, analogies, and historical precedents to the best of my humble abilities. Let the readers decide.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoBecause you were claiming that I was advocating for violence. The things you quoted? Those are the results of what you’re advocating for. If Google employees cannot decide not to associate with Damone after what he said, then they do not have freedom of speech. And you said that you were fine with that.