quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why do you keep changing what you're discussing?

A few posts ago this was about if the law was actually involved in the case, not if the law could potentially have become involved.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Oliver North
you mean when a university cancelled her talk? or the non-government representative who sent her a letter?

not really state censorship

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why do you keep changing what you're discussing?

A few posts ago this was about if the law was actually involved in the case, not if the law could potentially have become involved.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's a reasonable argument for self censorship but as a law it would actually encourage violence and extremism since it makes violent groups unquestionable. Its the same logic behind "we don't negotiate with X" philosophies. Rewarding criminal actions is something legal systems need to avoid.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I always wonder how you can be stupid enough to claim you didn't say things when you know they've been recorded for posterity.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He's explicitly strawmanning liberalism.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
To be fair, all four if those are from the same thread- this one -so I wouldn't say he's "following you around", per say. Just invested in this thread.