Opposing "speech policing" is standing up for open speech. It is not a variant of "speech policing." To claim that it is is just nasty verbal trickery. It's ex

Opposing "speech policing" is standing up for open speech. It is not a variant of "speech policing." To claim that it is is just nasty verbal trickery. It's exactly like one person saying "Criminals use guns to rob people" and another person saying "But police use guns, too, so they're just as bad as criminals." The proper distinction is that criminals use guns to rob, and police use guns to protect. There is a technical name for this trick, "equivocation." It's equating things that are different in essence by referencing superficial similarities. And you've added a helping of sarcasm on top of that, which is never germane to making a rational argument. > I can't quite see that you've given me the same courtesy, though. If I'm standing up for someone who is being "attacked" (for lack of a better term), I can't exactly be courteous to the attacker in the sense you are asking, which is "not disagreeing." Which is not the normal sense of the word "courteous." In the normal sense of "courteous," I have been courteous. The post I made doesn't even reference you personally. This is another equivocation on your part---equating actual courtesy and "not getting called out." Now, I'm going to end this conversation before someone who actually "works at" HN has to come along and ask us to stop. I hope somebody has learned something about equivocation from this comment, which is my intention. Otherwise it would be pointless and I would not post it.