eeeYour argument here is that its dumb to get punished for not following directions, rather than trying to point out the actual flaws in the bill.
Everything you have said in this thread personally offends me. Anyone that offends me is hateful and using hate speech, therefore, you must stop speaking your mind and opinion because I have subjectively decided that it harms me.
Now everyone reading what I just said is probably sitting there thinking, "This guy is a fucking idiot," and they are right, its absolute nonsense to just be able to claim some kind of slight because someone said something that you somehow construed as offensive. It is even more nonsensical to try and silence you because you hold a different opinion than me, or because I claim offense.
eee
u realize germany didn't spring into existence with the THIRD reich, right?
It's not like Hitler died and all of Germany became what it is today, trying to exclude the existence of Nazism from Germany is like saying America never had slaves, like it or not both had an affect on the country past and present.
eeeTino_We are not arguing that having limits to what you can say is wrong, we are arguing that having limits that overstep basic logic is. Having pronouns classified as hate speech oversteps that line by a mile.
whats the difference?
Since you don't agree with what Tino has said, where do you think the line should be drawn? What is offensive and what isn't offensive? What is the standard and who decides what the standard is?
eeeThe US already limits free speech in the form of fighting words
I am pretty sure the U.S. only limits free speech when it directly incites violence on someone or a group of people, this could be what you mean, but I wasn't sure. There is a huge difference in not using someone's preferred pronoun and threatening some sort of violence to them because of them identifying as whatever.