How was my original comment insulting? Criticizing someone’s logic isn’t an insult.

I would’ve thought December 14 would be more appropriate, being the day the Electoral College voted.

Funny you should accuse me of straw manning when I never acted like they’re in the wrong for caring and having emotions about transphobia. My criticism was all about how they’re going about combatting it.

Caring isn’t a shield against criticism. A person can genuinely care a lot about a good cause and still be totally wrong about how they approach it. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Funny you should use social media as your example because I think social media reinforces my idea that, especially these days, people shape media more than the other way around. People have more ability than ever to pick their own media sources, so I think whatever news or memes they see is probably what they wanted…

As it is it isn’t a free speech issue. I was just curious where you’d stand if it actually became a free speech issue, and since you seem to equate caring with being aggressive it seemed at least semi-plausible to me that you’d support making hate speech illegal. Speaking of which, I think your claim here about how my…

I can care about bigotry and hate speech but still have concerns about limiting public discourse. I know this technically isn’t a free speech issue, but since some people think hate speech actually should be made illegal I wonder if you think people who want to keep it legal just don’t care enough.

One joke Boomers used to tell about getting older was their kids asking “Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings?”

What makes you think it wasn’t simply reflecting the bigotry that was already there?

Considering how quickly you called me a coward, bigot, and troll, I don’t think I even had to try to piss you off.

It seemed to me like the sources being cited mostly talked about there being a connection between hate speech and violence between hate speech and violence, which, yeah. Some argued hate speech caused violence, but that seems to me like another subjective opinion, so in this case citing sources basically means citing…

When I start a discussion, I don’t go into it expecting to change people’s minds. No matter how conclusive I think my point is, I assume people have reasons for their beliefs that they think are just as solid and won’t be any more likely to change their beliefs than I am. Sure, I’d prefer to change someone’s mind if I…

Considering how much people can pick and choose their own media sources these days, I’m guessing the majority if not vast majority of antivaxers deliberately sought out antivax propaganda because they already agreed with it. If exposure is the issue, why haven’t all the pro-vaccine media sources swayed them?

Your mom strikes me as someone who has extreme difficulty with socialization, even conceptually, and because of that she can’t envision how complex social interactions create and shape and change ideas, preferring instead to think that everything originates fully-formed in her own head with no outside interference.

I’m guessing they didn’t do it because of one person.

This is the first time I’ve ever seen the word “sperglord.”

When did he directly tell them to attack the capitol? I mean, of course the insurrectionists would say “Trump made me do it”; they probably don’t like taking responsibility for their own actions any more than he does.

With physical damage there’s objective proof that it exists. I think people’s feelings are a less objective measurement. If someone feels a black comedian calling white people “crackers” is hate speech, would you call that an “objective” assessment?

Someone can abhor something and still defend the right to spew it.

My point is that I think people frequently overestimate how much the media influences people, which I said in those exact words in a previous comment.