If you accept that speech or a lack of it, is in fact violence, it follows that you may be justly punished for merely existing at the wrong time.
Obviously, that's absurd. There are trillions of injustices in the world, most of which I am unaware of. Nobody has the time, energy, nor expertise to opine on, condemn, or affirm even 0.5% of those injustices, even assuming we all agree they are actual injustices.
Confounding this woke bullshit further is language. You may have noticed many arguments turn into a debate over semantics, rather than the usually more important issue of which idea is superior and why. Language is fickle, but also incredibly important, as it is our primary means of communicating complex ideas. While language is unavoidably fickle, it should not be too fickle lest all definitions become subject to change on the fly. Not all communicators are benevolent and take advantage of (or some might say hijack) our evolving and fickle language.
I think it's obvious that would be a bad road to go down. Yet here we are:
The entire House Democratic caucus, plus Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger of course, voted for a resolution which claimed the Gosar video functioned to “further violence against elected officials.” In doing so, the caucus endorsed and codified the emotionally manipulative logic of AOC, who proclaimed: “When we incite violence with depictions against our colleagues, that trickles down into violence in this country.” I would love for someone to explicate the exact causal chain by which they’re contending that this cartoon video will produce real-life violence. Because otherwise they’re just spouting cliches and, worse, popularizing a specious line of argument that does nothing to prevent actual violence — but does stifle political speech. [emphasis mine]
Can you imagine what this country would be like if we did not have the 1st amendment? We're lucky they have to change definitions, bend and twist language, stretch logic, and get very creative in their ways to control speech.
