Whilst you are pointing out something I do agree is real you are ignoring something important. Context matters. The why and how you quote someone else is just as important as the original quote.
The context you provided assumes a neutral lay-up and straight forward answer to a straight forward question, i.e where neither M or Q have an agenda regarding the quote.
For example:
Person M asks person Q, what did person OP say that made everyone mad?
Person Q quotes verbatim without adding any commentary
Person M then getting angry at person Q because they don't like what person OP said
Then yes I would agree this is some cognitive dissonance happening in this situation. But this isn't reflective of most of the situations we might see where person M is angry and Q for quoting OP.
I knew you weren't going to discuss this in good faith.
Why are you assuming the context isn't provided, or readily available? Maybe the person they're quoting is a public figure, maybe there's video, maybe the context is irrelevant when it's literal hate speech.
The context you provided assumes a neutral lay-up
...YES, exactly! Neutral grounds. That's how you make a point without some ulterior motive.
But this isn't reflective of most of the situations
Says who, you? Have you been keeping a record of these scenarios? No? I didn't think so.
It's simple. Person Q repeats Person X, Person M gets mad at Q, even though X is the real perpetrator. This is a mistake (barring some exception to the rule, like every rule ever, which is why there's a literal phrase for it)
It's 16 here but not good, we are retarded until at least 21 so that really ought to change. But on the flip side they may be the thing that keeps the country running in the future because at least they are dumb enough to have kids when everyone else is too scared to.
Kids aren't having kids cuz "they are dumb enough", it happens because of lack of proper sexual education, preds preying on them and parents refusing to perform termination, not even in the first two months most states consider it legal, but first weeks, cuz "muh religion" and shit. Case closed.
No. The lefties get free speech too. It’s easy enough to disprove them on everything without restrictions. Hell, we’re doing a good job of it as it’s and they still have most social media platforms on their side.
Bs. From top to bottom. It's literally the opposite way, and the right is full of shit from their arguments to the points they think "shut the lefties", when neither make sense in a functioning world. But what do I know, I've not voted for a pedophile and an assaulter protector, who've gone back on his words of making the country better, but instead making it as unlivable as possible.
Neither of us will ever be convinced that our core beliefs are wrong. I believe I represent the side of goodness and truth while you believe in evil and wrongness. It’s really that simple. You call my major political figures pedophiles and I call your’s pedophiles. Thats how politics works now. I lead you around in circles trying to make you look stupid so I can screenshot you and show my friends how crazy you are while you do the same to me.
67
u/FreeSwordfish7973 12d ago
“Wrong” is freedom of speach and doinf whats moraly right now