I feel like a comment that just asked for a source would be less substantive and more dismissive. Adding examples of how it goes against my intuitions serves to

I feel like a comment that just asked for a source would be less substantive and more dismissive. Adding examples of how it goes against my intuitions serves to justify the request. But we can agree to disagree there. I could be convinced to restrict freedom to prevent harm, but doing so just to have a positive impact goes against me on principle. I get the sense that this is a common principle because all of these lists specifically discuss harms, but it may just be an American thing. So I'm going to talk about trivialization, but it's fine with me if you'd rather argue against this paragraph (or ignore me entirely). The closest I can find to semantic satiation having significant effects beyond the short term is in helping stutterers, where the meaning of the words would be irrelevant. I may not be using the right search terms though. An important distinction re: political parties is that they are using the relevant meanings. A master git branch, as far as I'm aware, does not refer to someone controlling someone else but is used in the sense of a master recording. In any event, US Republicans talk about CRT and US Democrats talk about fascism, both ad infinitum. Neither side is trying to normalize or trivialize their attack words, so that's a point against 'if it didn't work, it wouldn't be in their playbook'.