(putting your potential libertarianism aside) Would you support a government program that paid a moderate monthly stipend to people who've tested positive for severe genetic illnesses, as long as they don't reproduce?
It's really hard to interpret this as a request for me to restrict my speech and questions not because of it directly, but because of associations people make to bad things. This is categorically not a persuasive reason, and agreeing to restrict seems like a dangerous precedent.
-
-
I’m not asking you to restrict your speech - I’m asking you to be cognizant of it and how it can effect others - I get the historical point but I’m not saying “don’t say this we don’t like it” I’m saying - this is problematic can you adjust how you’re talking about this.
-
Maybe part of the problem here is it looks like we're used to talking to extremely different audiences. My audience typically interprets what I say exactly as I mean it, without association problems. It sounds like yours has association problems
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I would say that it is about the specific direct phases you’re using tho- your response here is kinda like saying “well saying ret*rd doesn’t upset me so I should get to say it!” Association w bad things is absolutely reason to adjust your rhetoric and approach to a topic
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.