I'm not sure it's the worst attribute you can have, but I definitely agree with the sentiment. As I've gotten older, I've become less fond of slippery slope st

I'm not sure it's the worst attribute you can have, but I definitely agree with the sentiment. As I've gotten older, I've become less fond of slippery slope style arguments. People love making them for censorship-related rules and laws. "Oh if <biden> is allowed to ask/tell social media to stop publishing so many lies about covid then that means trump will be able to <whatever>" First of all, trump and his ilk are probably going to do <whatever> regardless of what people did in the past and the technical legality of the actions seems to be of only minor concern. Secondly, I hate this idea that laws and rules can't have nuances. We can, with our collective brain power, probably come up with a law that helps reduce covid lies and doesn't also apply to government criticism or whatever. I get the appeal of a simple "all speech is free! No laws about speech allowed!" But fairly obviously you're going to have laws about fraud/threats/slander/"porn" at which point we're back to nuances and deciding which bits we allow and where. As for modern republicans, I'm not old enough to have ever believed their states rights/small gov/freedom lies, but I thought I could at least count on them to be anti-russia invading other countries.