> You are hating on my principle of free speech.
Do you really think you are contributing to the conversation when you say things like this?
Do you really think you are contributing to the conversation when you say things like this?
instead of applying them arbitrarily (which you won't like when your political party isn't in power), just apply them fairly across the board regardless of whose in charge so we can coexist in a civilized manner without the kind of extreme psychological aggression that takes place in the heart of censorship
That post only works if you use an absolutely ridiculous definition of hate speech.
It does not show a flaw in the opposing argument. It's not an example of a rule being applied arbitrarily. It's an example of falsely claiming a rule applies when it objectively does not apply. If that's a weakness, it's a weakness in basically every law. It's not a disqualifier.
They could have tried to show an unfairness or a contradiction that actually relates to sloppy definitions of hate speech, but they didn't. They went outside the definition.
> instead of applying them arbitrarily (which you won't like when your political party isn't in power), just apply them fairly across the board regardless of whose in charge
I think you mixed something up here. Applying a law fairly doesn't prevent a different political party from interpreting it differently and ending the fairness. I'm pretty sure your argument is supposed to be that these laws should not exist in the first place, because they're too dangerous in the wrong hands. Not "just apply them fairly".
That's a very different argument from the one I was critiquing.
> you're the only one here whose lacking an example.
It's not about whether I can come up with an example myself, it's that the specific example used by Asooka was a troll argument.