I’m not trying to argue in bad faith. I think it’s my idea that’s offensive to you, but I’m open to criticism if you think there’s something else. > But I’m no

I’m not trying to argue in bad faith. I think it’s my idea that’s offensive to you, but I’m open to criticism if you think there’s something else. > But I’m not going to do it from the basis that it’s equivalent to governmental action at the barrel of the gun. Genuinely, why do you believe it isn’t? I understand that the threat of violence carries its own separate offense, but in terms of ability to suppress ideas, it is equivalent. At an individual level it’s a choice, but at a systems level it’s enforced as surely as at the barrel of a gun, by modulating influence according to conformance. I’m not defending China, and more broadly I don’t think criticism of the USG is tacit support for China. Whatever happened to principles leading the good guys, instead of the other way around? And true, in China I wouldn’t have the freedom to express these ideas - maybe if they were smarter, they’d find a way to let me feel that freedom while still firmly controlling whether those ideas can spread and shape society.