How Progressives Justify Attacking Free Speech

As Ben Shapiro explains, progressives use a three-step argument to justify attacking free speech:

1. The validity of an argument can be judged solely by the ethnic, sexual, racial, or cultural identity of the person making the argument.
2. Those who say otherwise are engaging in verbal violence.
3. Physical violence can be justified when it stops verbal violence.

Shapiro fills in a few details:

Thanks to Moonbattery

2 thoughts on “How Progressives Justify Attacking Free Speech”

  1. Leftopaths are fantasists, like little kids playing with action figures in a sandbox, making them do and say what they want.

    Their every discussion involves an allegedly oppressed group and its imaginary oppressors, and the need for some larger group of heroes to rescue them.

    It doesn’t matter that people’s individual choices determine the lives they need, to leftists nobody has free will but it only another helpless fellow victim of societal forces beyond their control, or what Karl Marx called “Historical Predeterminism.”

    Muslims call it the “Will of (unknown, unknowable) Allah” or “inshallah” for short.

    In other words, all such criminal gangsters endorse excuse-making slavery, pretending there is no free-will choice and therefore no crimes nor criminals, (the determination of which relies on mens-rea/guilty-mind free-will “intent”) either.

Comments are closed.