When the bedrock, lead-off of your case is that college students not wanting to date Trump supporters reveals a predilection for infringing on people's rights, you've lost the argument in a way that veers way too close to incel-ville.
Yikes.
nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/…
Yikes.
nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/…
He literally CANNOT stop talking about who college kids want to date.
Oh good, I was beginning to get worried that he was ignoring the mating preferences of us non-students. Phew.
This. is. so. weird.
This. is. so. weird.
*citation needed
"De facto common carriers?" I guess we can just call people legal concepts and use "de facto" and like...whatever, it's cool.
Two can play this game: The author of this lengthy whine about how people don't like his views is a de facto Superfund site.
Two can play this game: The author of this lengthy whine about how people don't like his views is a de facto Superfund site.
"We should protect free speech by protecting against political discrimination, EXCEPT for beliefs not worthy of respect in a democratic society, as defined by the government" is some galaxy-brain shit.
At it's core, this is just a de-religionized version of Sohrab: In order to win the war against society rejecting our ideas, we must curtail the freedoms of those of who disagree with us and have the ability to impact our lives in some way.
People will indeed say it is authoritarian, Eric. Because it is. And saying "nu uh, it's LIBERAL" isn't going to magically change that.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
