Biggs3535

Participant
Post count: 6221

You came here to mock the original tweet about the hate crime bill.

Incorrect. I came here to mock you and your tweet/thread saying a meme is why there is a hate crime bill, as if posting a meme is a hate crime. When you call an apple an orange and I point out that it’s an apple, I’m not defending or making excuses for the apple. I’m acknowledging reality that it’s an apple and not an orange.

Not to mention, there are already hate crime laws on the books. This one is simply more virtue signaling to the useful idiots…and it apparently worked.

LOGICALLY you are defending someone’s right to say something racist, and that a bill designed to stop hate speech, is a liberal overreach.

This is called subtext.

It’s actually called nuance. I’m not defending what was said or posted, but I defend anybody’s right to free speech – even abhorrent, racist free speech. That’s what free speech is and why it is expressly laid out in our founding documents. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you. But being the good little comrade you are, you are only for free speech that has been soy-boy approved – which isn’t free speech at all.

It’s also worth noting you’ve shifted from “hate crime” to “hate speech” – for obvious reasons.

So am I off, and if so… without calling me a “useful idiot” or “mayor of cluelessville” break it down how I’m wrong

I’m very accustomed to having to strenuously juxtapose absolutely everything for you, Mr. Mayor.