Thanks for taking the time. > the claim is stated in a rather unproductive way Do you mean, identifying it as "mindreading" in this terse way is unproductive,

Thanks for taking the time. > the claim is stated in a rather unproductive way Do you mean, identifying it as "mindreading" in this terse way is unproductive, or the subsequent phrasing and is unproductive? > The GP is not saying that we should apply new ideas about speech to past thinkers Oops, that wasn't what I meant to imply. My point was, JM and JSM would roll over to hear what I saw as GP's (recently revised) weasel words, e.g. "negatively impact" for "harm", employed towards what I saw as GP's desire to delegitimize large swaths of the political spectrum. But maybe that's some mindreading of my own. I had a visceral reaction to what I read as GP's roundabout argument against free speech. It seems to me like GP is imputing and denouncing the motives of people they dislike, and questioning the legitimacy of people's free speech rights given that GP know's what's in their soul. Do you see where I'm coming from here? < is not a simile How not?