They made 6 statements, each ending with “that’s protected speech”, referred to a “legal basis” and “legal status”, and mentioned that the SuperbOwl was a private event, as if someone was implying otherwise. Not sure how else you interpret that but please share if you have another perspective.
E: LOL you people are literally delusional. Zero objectivity.
And then they immediately “made it a thing” by writing out a strawman argument, which I addressed. I don’t understand where the confusion is coming from.
No, they didn’t. The point that were made all stated that everything’s protected by free speech. No one here is upset about the Black National Anthem being sung, you’re just trying to stir up shit. Ergo, DON’T MAKE IT A THING.
The point that were made all stated that everything’s protected by free speech.
Yes, I got that. My point (once again) is no one thinks it is illegal, which makes the argument it a strawman (ie: arguing against a point no one is making).
No one here is upset about the Black National Anthem being sung
Oh look, another strawman.
Ergo, DON’T MAKE IT A THING.
I’m really not sure what this is supposed to mean in this context. I didn’t “make it a thing”. It was “made a thing” by whoever decided to sing it, the people who were upset by it, the article that was published, and the person replying to the article before I even knew it took place.
Yes, that’s definitely what’s happening. I need attention from anonymous strangers on the internet. 🤦♂️ It’s definitely not that someone had a bad take. Deny deny deny.
Of course I do. I’ve already explained it elsewhere. It’s when someone (like the person I replied to) fabricates a fallacious argument their opposition supposedly holds (like the idea that singing a particular song is illegal) and then tries to tear down the argument they themselves fabricated as evidence that their opposition is wrong.
Dog they just listed reasons they think the maga reaction is stupid and you’ve got a whole write up as to why maga doesn’t care about legality. You missed the plot it’s okay.
We know that though. We know they only care because they’re racist. The commenter doesn’t care if it’s a legal issue or not. They just think it’s stupid and listed 6 reasons they think that. Move on it ain’t that deep.
They made 6 statements, each ending with “that’s protected speech”, referred to a “legal basis” and “legal status”, and mentioned that the SuperbOwl was a private event, as if someone was implying otherwise. Not sure how else you interpret that but please share if you have another perspective.
E: LOL you people are literally delusional. Zero objectivity.
All of those six statements were predicated with “This is such a non-thing that it hurts to even consider how stupid it is.“
Ergo, let’s not make it a thing…
And then they immediately “made it a thing” by writing out a strawman argument, which I addressed. I don’t understand where the confusion is coming from.
No, they didn’t. The point that were made all stated that everything’s protected by free speech. No one here is upset about the Black National Anthem being sung, you’re just trying to stir up shit. Ergo, DON’T MAKE IT A THING.
Yes. They did.
Yes, I got that. My point (once again) is no one thinks it is illegal, which makes the argument it a strawman (ie: arguing against a point no one is making).
Oh look, another strawman.
I’m really not sure what this is supposed to mean in this context. I didn’t “make it a thing”. It was “made a thing” by whoever decided to sing it, the people who were upset by it, the article that was published, and the person replying to the article before I even knew it took place.
Oh look, someone trying to stir up a dumb argument on the internet because they need attention.
Yes, that’s definitely what’s happening. I need attention from anonymous strangers on the internet. 🤦♂️ It’s definitely not that someone had a bad take. Deny deny deny.
ooh look, another strawman argument. strawman arguments all over the place today!
I don’t think you understand what that means
You don’t know what a straw man argument is do you?
Of course I do. I’ve already explained it elsewhere. It’s when someone (like the person I replied to) fabricates a fallacious argument their opposition supposedly holds (like the idea that singing a particular song is illegal) and then tries to tear down the argument they themselves fabricated as evidence that their opposition is wrong.
You missed statement 0.
No. I didn’t.
Oh okay so you chose to ignore it and draw your own conclusions at what point they were making, got it.
Once again, no, I did not.
Dog they just listed reasons they think the maga reaction is stupid and you’ve got a whole write up as to why maga doesn’t care about legality. You missed the plot it’s okay.
I did not write “a whole write up”, dog. It was 2 sentences. All of their reasons were legal, which is what I addressed.
🤦♂️ No. Wrong again. My point was that it’s not a legal issue.
We know that though. We know they only care because they’re racist. The commenter doesn’t care if it’s a legal issue or not. They just think it’s stupid and listed 6 reasons they think that. Move on it ain’t that deep.
Then why did they take the time to list 6 reasons why it’s legal? 🤷
Just put your shovel down and move on.
Removed by mod
No I did.
Removed by mod
No I really did
Yes. It is. All the time.
Removed by mod
Except it’s not.
Removed by mod
this pedantic bullshit isn’t worth your time. don’t let them distract you from important work.
Removed by mod
In this context “that’s protected speech” means roughly, “STFU maga, nothing you can do about it, and you have no basis for your tantum.”