• @helenslunch
    link
    -28
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

    • HonkyTonkWoman
      link
      fedilink
      312 months ago

      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…

      • @helenslunch
        link
        -362 months ago

        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.

        • HonkyTonkWoman
          link
          fedilink
          182 months ago

          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.

          • @helenslunch
            link
            -25
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            No, they didn’t.

            Yes. They did.

            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.

            • HonkyTonkWoman
              link
              fedilink
              142 months ago

              Oh look, someone trying to stir up a dumb argument on the internet because they need attention.

              • @helenslunch
                link
                -192 months ago

                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.

                • HonkyTonkWoman
                  link
                  fedilink
                  92 months ago

                  Yes, that’s definitely what’s happening. I need attention from anonymous strangers on the internet.

                  ooh look, another strawman argument. strawman arguments all over the place today!

                  • @helenslunch
                    link
                    -122 months ago

                    I don’t think you understand what that means

          • @helenslunch
            link
            -14
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            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.

        • @zaph@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          142 months ago

          Oh okay so you chose to ignore it and draw your own conclusions at what point they were making, got it.

            • @zaph@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              82 months ago

              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.

              • @helenslunch
                link
                -10
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Dog they just listed reasons they think the maga reaction is stupid and you’ve got a whole write up

                I did not write “a whole write up”, dog. It was 2 sentences. All of their reasons were legal, which is what I addressed.

                as to why maga doesn’t care about legality.

                🤦‍♂️ No. Wrong again. My point was that it’s not a legal issue.

                • @zaph@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  112 months ago

                  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.

                  • @helenslunch
                    link
                    -13
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    The commenter doesn’t care if it’s a legal issue or not.

                    Then why did they take the time to list 6 reasons why it’s legal? 🤷

                    Just put your shovel down and move on.

    • @octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 months ago

      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.”