“Wow. Obfuscation at its finest:

So the goal is to have people walk on eggshells and police casual conversation?

Well I won’t argue with you on the point that you aren’t making a clear, logical argument. Are you making an argument? Seems like you started off saying that Nazi rallies should be banned because reasons, and then when challenged on those flimsy reasons you resorted to weak pedantry. That about cover it?

Yes, she is the one who does that. It’s not literally every single tennis player, including a couple Williams sisters who are inexplicably not getting old (and “mistaking” a drug test for a home invasion).

I would argue unequivocally that listening to someone who is good at sports speak their mind adds absolutely nothing to my life.

What a lazy take.

The negative is that you give up productivity and efficiency. Have you ever studied economics? I think you are having a difficult time understanding that things can have costs, or “a negative” but still be good.

I’m already arguing with one idiot, I don’t have time for another.

1. You are either being intentionally dense with respect to Nazi symbols being speech (they are - you should learn the terminology in the jurisdiction you are arguing should change their law before stupidly doing so) and the use of the word arbitrary. Arbitrary means you ban A because it is X, while ignoring B and C…

“You need to focus on diversity! No not that way! No that’s offensive. No not that way either! Why is this in Times New Roman, you fucking Nazi RACISTS!!!!!!!”

1. “I’m explicitly opposing Nazi rallies and the spread of Nazi speech. I’m explicitly opposing the notion that the right to hold Nazi rallies and spread Nazi speech should be held sacred.”

You seem to want to have a conversation about Dred Scott, which is weird considering you have no understanding or interest in U.S. law.

You said “where is the negative in clean air” with the implication that there is no negative, or cost, associated with clean air. There is a cost. It’s worth the cost to me, but I don’t deny reality to favor my preferred outcomes.

It was overturned. I accept that.

Well yes, that’s true. I was making fun of the idea that some graphic on the internet has some kind of authority. Like he just returned from a mountain with two stone tablets.

Ah, I see that you are still acting as dense as possible. Beyond reproach meaning that other branches of government and the people accept those decisions, even if they disagree, because of the importance of the Court to the Republic. But nice job missing the point and ignoring everything else I said.

First of all, I’m not your dancing monkey. You are not going to go far in life just expecting people to diligently answer your questions, without adding context where appropriate. Stop with the headmaster routine, it’s embarrassing.

My goodness, you packed a lot of stupid comments into such a short space. I’m not even mad.

Saying clean air or more generally environmental protection is costless is stupid and counterproductive. People like you get in the way with your propaganda.