He said that if such interference were really happening and conservatives were supporting such behavior they were “crazy” because eventually they themselves would be the target of such censorship
What’s really wild is that his biggest concern is that the people doing the fascist thing could become the target of it later. There’s no dawning of ‘oh maybe the people doing this aren’t so good’ no, he’s worried that the other people who have been warning that they are fascists might pursue them later with the fascist precedent they are putting in place.
Not necessarily.
It’s called arguing a conclusion to your audience in terms of premises they’ll accept & understand.
The conclusion is “censorship is dangerous”.
The premise “fascists are pieces of shit” doesn’t support that.
That’s a separate argument entirely.
Moreover, fascists are unlikely to accept that premise.
Arguing that is a great way to make fascists stop listening, which people who don’t know how to argue excel at.
What’s really wild is that his biggest concern is that the people doing the fascist thing could become the target of it later. There’s no dawning of ‘oh maybe the people doing this aren’t so good’ no, he’s worried that the other people who have been warning that they are fascists might pursue them later with the fascist precedent they are putting in place.
Not necessarily. It’s called arguing a conclusion to your audience in terms of premises they’ll accept & understand.
The conclusion is “censorship is dangerous”. The premise “fascists are pieces of shit” doesn’t support that. That’s a separate argument entirely.
Moreover, fascists are unlikely to accept that premise. Arguing that is a great way to make fascists stop listening, which people who don’t know how to argue excel at.