Nice, but the definition of violence these days is in debate.

Here's the link: nitter.vloup.ch/realTuckFrumper/… A line must be drawn with these lunatics. So, after the trauma of 4 years of Trump and Qanon, I do now believe in though crimes.

„No- we learn how to manipulate each other in such delightful ways that a truth speaker will never stay“ bilingual lawyer 🥵

It’s wild that this is a brave position to take these days.

Does this apply to state violence and military violence too? If not, this is just classic neoliberal rhetoric of nonviolence in service of state monopoly on violence. (Somehow I doubt you're suggesting that the WSJ should be prohibited from advocating for war with Russia.)

Pretty sure the books you may want to read are still available. They just aren’t the math books in public school.

And short of hate speech, lies, misinformation Which also do much damage

“Short of calling for violence, adults should be able to say whatever they want to say and read whatever they want to read” Here I fixed it for you so republicans will agree with you

I agree, but the funny thing about the Twitter controversy is that to be a conservative means to believe Twitter has a right to host or not host whatever speech it wants to.

even calling for violence is accepted....depending on who...the violence is against.. and sorry...but trying to speak common sense to the american masses...will never....get you far