• S_204
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    23 days ago

    You’re showing your lack of comprehension here. I never said said they’re violating the Constitution. If that’s how you’re interpreting this, that’s just ridiculous…

    I said they’re stifling. Free speech which is exactly what they’re trying to do.

    • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      23 days ago

      Sure, if you change the definition of words then you’ll never be wrong. Of course when YOU said “free speech” you didn’t mean the commonly understood, legally defined term that people use when the government oppresses its citizens by restricting their ability to speak out against it. You meant some arbitrary broader concept that includes Bibi coming over and explaining why opposing genocide is anti-Semitism directly to Congress. As if any foreign agent has, or should have the right to address the government anytime they want.

      I wonder what word you’ll redefine next to not be wrong.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        22 days ago

        If I were him, I’d try to redefine “redefine”.

        Hah, checkmate atheist.

        Ooh…ooh…“‘moving the goalposts’ means giving your opponent another shot at a field goal”.

      • S_204
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        22 days ago

        No one needs to change the definition when you’re working overtime to twist what I’m saying. I never said you needed to be arrested for violating the Constitution. I’m pointing out the clear and obvious fact that Free speech before they make hunger so it is being stifled…

        That you’re supporting this just shows how fascist the claimed progressives have become in America… if you’re afraid of someone speaking then challenge them with ideas. Don’t shut them down. I get that’s what you’re taught to do on campus now, but that’s not an effective way to deal with someone or something you disagree with.

        • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          22 days ago

          Absolutely not! You may have a right to speak but you have no right to an audience. Just because someone wants to talk it doesn’t mean I have to “challenge their ideas”. I can just not listen. And if they want to come speak in my house I can trespass them. That’s what the Democrats are doing.

          You can speak, but no one needs to listen. Some ideas don’t deserve the respect of a challenge. Anything Bibi wants to say right now is easily in that range.

          • S_204
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            21 days ago

            Yes you can. Just not listen. That’s a very good point. Not listening is very different from scuttling the invitation provided by the speaker of the house.

            • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              21 days ago

              Not really. Either way you’re not listening. In one case you’re not listening as a group.

              You ever get tired of shilling for genocide?