Argumentum ad Godwin

Free Speech

> This is horseshit. The very act of silencing or censoring that which you don't like makes you the Nazi. Once you establish the precedent that 'offensive' speech is illegal, then anything that challenges the political or cultural powers that be can then be deemed offensive and thereby banned.

At this point, you have forfeited any claim to moral rectitude that you might have made, because your entire point can be summed up as "no you Nazi". You are literally comparing people who are intolerant of hate speech to an idiology that has murdered millions and would do so again given the chance.

You seem to take pride in your reasoning ability. The second part of that paragraph I just quoted is a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy. Here's Wikipedia:

> The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with {continuum fallacy}, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In this sense, it constitutes an {informal fallacy}. In a non-fallacious sense, including use as a legal principle, a middle-ground possibility is acknowledged, and reasoning is provided for the likelihood of the predicted outcome. Other idioms for the slippery slope argument are the thin end/edge of the wedge, the {camel's nose} in the tent, or {If You Give a Mouse a Cookie}.

Later, you again engage in a false equivalency.

> Fuck Joe Stali---, err, Biden.

At least you had the decency to say what you mean, rather than veiling the sentiment with the vapid "let's go Brandon" cipher in recent use. It is, however, a false equivalency. How many millions has Biden murdered?