• Hacksaw
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 month ago

    THAT’S NOT WHAT FREE SPEECH IS!!!

    It only means literally only one thing: the government isn’t allowed to punish you for saying something.

    That’s literally it. No one is being punished. Bibi can say whatever depraved shit he wants to anyone who will listen, it just turns out that it’s not Congress.

    You “free speech” literally don’t even understand the very basic thing you build your lives around. Less brain cells than an orange tabby.

    • S_204@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      1 month 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 month 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
          1 month 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@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 month 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month 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@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month 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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month 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?