Reasons why someone who is committed to the free exchange of ideas might not be listening to *your* ideas. From: https://areomagazine.com/2018/04/07/freedom-of-speech-and-the-fallacy-of-demanding-to-be-heard/ …pic.twitter.com/yvqBTT1uvE
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I don't know what you mean. I am saying it is OK to choose not to dialog with *certain people*, mostly because it increases the chances of productive dialog.
I don't know how you got from 'It's OK not to waste time on people who make bad arguments, are rude, are unreasonable, are incoherent' to 'Don't have dialog.'
Sorry. It's admittedly a loaded question based on witnessing a previous interaction with your coauthor. My point is that if [the royal] you begins statements that are, in fact, literal examples of 1-4, it should be expected to receive one or all of them in return.
Yes. This doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech tho which was the point.
Was it? I'm sorry. It looked like a response to how you are justified in not responding to others speech. I'm not being facetious, just how I interpreted your essay.
Me: It's not a denial of FoS to choose not to engage with someone's ideas. It might be coz they're not interested, find topic silly, find you rude or think someone else makes case better. You: *something about reaping what you sow* These seem to be different arguments.
I'm arguing that FoS includes freedom from speech. You are saying that the criteria by which we choose who to engage with can also be applied to us. I agree. Apply those criteria to us & decline to engage. Or any other. Ppl can decline to engage with me coz they dislike my name
That's absurd. Your name is awesome. 
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.