I don’t believe the Humanist of the Year would do that!
When the Supreme Court ultimately upholds every single letter of Florida’s new and blatantly unconstitutional anti-protesting law in a year or two I would like to revisit this post and others like it.
Of course I did not rtft and Matty covered it but whatever, you guys are about to see.
No trying to edgelord, but we’re talking about freedom of speech, not freedom of assembly. And the op in this case was referring to a totally difference scenario then the recently passed atrocious “mow ‘em down” statutes.”
How is that working out for you?
You are still fairly young. You will eventually learn the value of the meme.
Don’t tell anyone but a lot of people, especially a huge percentage of republicans/conservatives hold discussions in bad faith. So while you think you are digging for the truth of common ground they are acting like a debate captcha just pushing recycled points on every single topic.
And this is not by any measure free speech. You think people should be required to passively accept nonsense from other people as a preservation of free speech?
If someone wants to discuss or debate they are going to have to find a fresh approach not just a recycled strategy that got off a newsletter with talking points.
You can literally watch the bad faith Republican talking points spread, like a disease, on any given topic.
I might be seeing the same dumb take for literally the twentieth time. I don’t feel like I should be required to educate the ignorant and mislead as some protection of free speech.
You are actually not for free speech. You literally want to stifle people from expressing themselves as they see fit. Why do you think you should hold that power?
To be honest you are the one getting worked up by people calling Dawkins transphobic.
Why are you being so sensitive about language?
Actually debates are really stupid for politics too. They don’t actually demonstrate anything useful.
Protest is a form of speech attorney and counselor @ law 
And this FL law is a case of the government passing a law curtailing that right. It about way more than running over protesters.
No there is a legitimate distinction here. Op posed the question that is essentially “are we losing our free speech because we are bigot-shaming.” The answer to that question is “no.”
The mow em down statutes have nothing to do with the op.
Edited to be less of a dick and to clarify my point
The person who posted the one word “no” response was responding to the op’s assertion. The no answer was absolutely correct in that context and the statutes you have referenced are an entirely different issue.
I think that this is fair but I still think its funny that we’ve got conservatives pretending to be upset that we haven’t heard enough from Jordan Peterson god damn it while enthusiastically supporting legislation that makes it easier to run over political protestors with cars. The fact that people can look at the world this way is Exhibit Fucking A for why “herp derp let’s just have a free exchange of ideas and open debate with conservatives” is so vapid.
Actually I think it’s more of a distinction than a difference, but I get where you’re coming from there.
My point was that these anti-protest bills are a direct attack on “free speech” and those, if anything, are what the guy who started this thread should actually be concerned about, not whether or not some second-rate low-talker podcaster gets invited back to Maher’s panel.
Come on Harris is not a hateful charlatan. He has a big blind spot on race because he can’t seem to make the cognitive leap from the truism that the world would be better off if people didn’t think in terms of race and the fact that it doesn’t.
There is no way to view him as hateful. He just isn’t. He is wrong. That is not the same thing. We need to stop conflating them.
1 Like
Yeah but that’s the whole point… That’s why this thread isn’t really about “free speech.”
Edit: Or to put it more succinctly, you and like two other posters are having an entirely different debate then everyone else in this thread. I’m not sure anyone disagrees with the point you have put forward.
This is where I’m not like most progressives. I don’t believe you can be hurt by “speech” unless it’s specifically hate speech that causes either fear or invokes danger by others that impacts a group of people (not just 1 person). Maybe you can give me an example where I’m wrong
And in the back of my mind, I loved that MLB pulled out of Atlanta! Let them start paying the price for their racist bullshit. I was rooting for many companies to do the same thing and hurt those racist asshole leglislators. But… there is a legit concern about the people who will really be affected by it and those are the same people who helped us flip the senate. No one in deep south rural GA gives a shit about the MLB or will be affected by it
Same when the Texas power grid went out. You think people in rural TX gave a shit? They ain’t worried about being cold or needing electricity. They’re tough. People don’t understand typical redneck flyover country. It’s the people in urban city areas that get hurt
Texans don’t care about something like electricity or hypothermia, they are tough!
6 Likes
The WAAF crew made an exception for like the one clearly eroding Constitutional right. Gotta give it to em for errrrr consistency?
1 Like
Yeah if I got anything thru to the geniuses here, I hope it was how utterly concerned I am about whether Dawkins got his feelings hurt. Please god let him be okay 
Trust me. There weren’t many rural Texans worried about their families surviving a few days or even weeks without heat