3 ms·

You seem to be missing the point that if something can be weaponized by the right, it can be weaponized by the left, and then the right can weaponize it again…

• lern_too_spel 4y ago
  > You seem to be missing the point that if something can be weaponized by the right, it can be weaponized by the left, and then the right can weaponize it again… No, I'm not. If some speech serves to cause people to die, that speech is bad and is not worth protecting. Preventing people from dying is the opposite of weaponizing. If my opponents want to prevent me from dying, I won't oppose them in doing so. My opponents and I don't disagree on everything. If I say I should eat bread but not shit, your argument is that my opponents can now say that I should eat shit but not bread. You're ignoring that only one of these is wrong. You seem to be missing that cancel culture is itself free speech, so your position contradicts itself.
  • twblalock 4y ago
    > If I say I should eat bread but not shit, your argument is that my opponents can now say that I should eat shit but not bread. You're ignoring that only one of these is wrong. I’m not sure why you keep going with the weird shit-based analogy. My argument is simply that if you can control the speech of others, then they can control yours. Whether some speech is “right” or “wrong” is always going to be up for debate. The result will simply be that anyone in power will ban speech they don’t like.
    • lern_too_spel 4y ago
      Your argument is fundamentally a nonsense slippery slope one. The eating shit analogy makes this clear. People in power can do what they want no matter what. The solution to that is to choose wisely when putting people into power, not preemptively eating shit.