cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/52036171

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 10 months ago (15 children)

main focus here should be the word “influencers”

So, anyone: got it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (14 children)

    Is that what your attention span lasts? Or are you leaving the rest of the comment out on purpose for some reason?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (13 children)

    When an influencer is literally anyone online, then yes: anyone. Nothing else you wrote matters, because anyone can be an influencer.

    People should be held accountable for their lapses in judgement to believe whatever: they aren't mindless automatons. We can't depend on anyone (certainly not big daddy government) but ourselves to think critically for us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (12 children)

    So you didn't read past the first sentence, got it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (11 children)

    Nah, your point is worthless. Here's a nice picture.
    meme strong arms join to form a pact: authoritarian leftists & fascists agree: end liberal democracy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (10 children)

    Ah... I see... My bad, I understood it too late that I wasn't talking with someone able to fully read a comment before making a "sharp" remark about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (9 children)

    Get butthurt all you want about others not caring about & disagreeing with your point.

    Someone's lack of sense to question unreliable information is entirely their fault. That's no justification to violate a fundamental right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (8 children)

    Not butthurt at all. I just accepted that I'm not discussing with someone capable of reading a comment beyond the first sentence of it. It's fine tho, I'm not gonna explain it again just because you refuse to read the first comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (7 children)

    You don't need to explain your delusion that critics didn't read your comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (6 children)

    "I'm a free speech absolutist who can't read and believes that people shouldn't be held responsible for what they say".

    You're not a critic, you just sound awfully like a maga snowflake yelling "but muh freedom!".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (5 children)

    Let's hold people responsible for what they say by violating freedom of speech.

    Little Jimmy injured himself trying to fly like Superman, so we must hold those media execs responsible by violating freedom of expression.

    Nah, shit argument: mere falsehoods do not incite imminent, unlawful harm. The time to discuss & criticize that speech before acting is unbounded. Any harm is the own doing & responsibility of someone failing to exercise reasonable sense of challenging unsound information & sources.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    You keep sounding like a maga snowflake that doesn't like when their words bring them consequences. It's fine tho, I understand that you are not equipped to understand the nuances of freedom of speech and its limitations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

    Calling anyone who doesn't oppose free speech MAGA (a straw man or ad hominem fallacy) isn't serving you. Mere falsehoods do not constitute violations of free speech limitations (eg, true threats, defamation, imminent lawless action). Try respecting logic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    You are trying to debate something you haven't read in the first place. And you ask me to "respect logic". I mean... try respecting logic?

    You just seem offended by something you simply refuse to read, which is very much in line with what MAGAs do. As I said, you are not ready to discuss the limits to free speech and the concept of "consequences to what you say".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    You are trying to debate something you haven’t read in the first place.

    I refer you back to

    You don’t need to explain your delusion that critics didn’t read your comment.

    Everything else you wrote was addressed.

    concept of “consequences to what you say”

    Right: criticism, condemnation.

    Those taking ill-advised actions causing actual (not imaginary) harm must bear the consequences of their actions, not anyone else who didn't make them do it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • See? But you didn't address anything because, by your own admission, you didn't read my comment. So you don't even know what you are criticizing. You are just butthurt because someone dared to defy "your freedom".

    Just admit that you don't want responsibilities for your words. That's it, that's all you are saying. And that is a very MAGA thing.

  • source
  • parent