This is a bad faith argument in itself. Nobody is censoring you for having opinions. State your opinions clearly without retreating to a persecution complex, and if people find your arguments valid they’ll engage with them.
That’s is a bad faith arguement. People are censored for their opinions all of the time, they may not be arrested but they will lose their job or worse, I’m not talking about actual censorship I’m talking about the court of public opinion.
That’s not called censorship, that’s called consequence (and like you said, court of public opinion). Censorship means they wouldn’t have been able to make their shitty remark in the first place. The consequence of public opinion is a result of having been free to say what they want to begin with. Sounds more like you want no consequences for actions and that’s a very different thing.
This is a bad faith argument in itself. Nobody is censoring you for having opinions. State your opinions clearly without retreating to a persecution complex, and if people find your arguments valid they’ll engage with them.
That’s is a bad faith arguement. People are censored for their opinions all of the time, they may not be arrested but they will lose their job or worse, I’m not talking about actual censorship I’m talking about the court of public opinion.
That’s not called censorship, that’s called consequence (and like you said, court of public opinion). Censorship means they wouldn’t have been able to make their shitty remark in the first place. The consequence of public opinion is a result of having been free to say what they want to begin with. Sounds more like you want no consequences for actions and that’s a very different thing.