I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.
I totally agree, it’s like calling your opponent bot, voids a lot of what you have to say
it’s like calling your opponent bot, voids a lot of what you have to say
That’s not quite the same. When calling someone a bot, or nazi, or any other group, you are more explicitly saying " I see zero value in arguing with you and expect that you will only be arguing in bad faith, so I am not going to humor you", and also serves as an at least attempted black mark.
It’s overall just a tactic to end an argument sucinctly, by trying to say “this argument has run its course, I am cutting it off here”
Every group does it. communists call people libs or nazis, leftists call people tankies or nazis or zionists, liberals call people hippies, nazis, commies, anarchists, etc… and conservatives call people by every word in the book.
Alt text there:
I totally agree, it’s like calling your opponent bot, voids a lot of what you have to say
That’s not quite the same. When calling someone a bot, or nazi, or any other group, you are more explicitly saying " I see zero value in arguing with you and expect that you will only be arguing in bad faith, so I am not going to humor you", and also serves as an at least attempted black mark.
It’s overall just a tactic to end an argument sucinctly, by trying to say “this argument has run its course, I am cutting it off here”
Every group does it. communists call people libs or nazis, leftists call people tankies or nazis or zionists, liberals call people hippies, nazis, commies, anarchists, etc… and conservatives call people by every word in the book.
Lenin straight up says that in the “freedom of criticism” section of “what is to be done”