”Go back and read Red's initial post and then Larry's dismissive response and the ones that followed.”
Since when am I obligated to respond to Red?
Since when am I obligated to respond to Ham/Uno/Utley?
How am I stifling Maher’s speech by deciding I’m not going to watch his show?
I told everyone why I don’t give a shit what Maher has to say so I have to hear “Oh, you think your people had it bad?”
To “your don’t say anything of value...” if nothing I say has weight or value why do you insist I engage in a discussion over what Maher had to say?
This is becoming a pattern. Ham who has been nothing but an asshole DEMANDS I answer his queries.
I tell him to go screw and here comes Banks to insist I engage with a fucking racist asshole.
Why is that, Jenna? Huh? Come on Jenna, tell me why I have to give Utley the time of day.
Elba
These (the bolded and enlarged above) are examples of a strawman argument.
Larry's response to his labeling Maher a "pot-smoking white privileged libertarian", rather than addressing the content of what Maher said as presented by Red's post, now has led to a series on strawmen that he proceeds to knock down.
No one said Larry had to do anything, but he chose to take Red's posts about Maher and turn it into a personal attack on Maher.
Now he complains that someone took issue with his response that no one forced him to make.
LMAO
How then "stifled?"A QnD answer is
I did not suggest Maher's opinion was deleted or banned, which is another strawman, but rather, Maher's point as presented by Red's post, was stifled by a libertarian pillow thrown on it, making it less able to breathe on its own.
It was dismissed by several posters and not discussed largely due to Maher's being labeled a pot-smoking white-privved, lib, yada X3.
I could use Larry's pre-screened stifle approach to answering questions with anyone.
its easy
link 3 damning insults which appeal to the crowd and avoid the issue= STIFLED
Hope that helps Polaris.
Poll
