4 ms·
It's pretty obvious that people who have their own speech being suppressed would be advocating for freedom of speech. That's almost tautological, and not a part
by pnako 6y ago
It's pretty obvious that people who have their own speech being suppressed would be advocating for freedom of speech. That's almost tautological, and not a particularly interesting argument.
- krapp 6y agoThey're not advocating for freedom of speech, they're advocating for the tolerance of racist speech under a politically correct banner. Most of them wouldn't bat an eye at the suppression of speech they disagree with, which is evident in how often their attempts at general argument devolve into rants against "the left", SJWs, feminists, etc.
- pnako 6y agoAs I said, it doesn't really matter, if they defend a good argument for the wrong reasons. It's quite possible that some people who want free speech now might be against free speech for others, but that's hardly an argument against having free speech in the first place. It's an interesting thought experiment: under free speech you should be free to advocate for a restriction of free speech.