This comment is a hilarious example of: https://x.com/AustingrahamZ1/status/1029385497213366279?lang...

For this to be anything like "so you hate waffles" there would have to somebody going around declaring to all that "all breakfast foods are good and can not be criticized" and them only showing up to defend pancakes on the basis of "all breakfast foods" but then deafening silence when waffles or bacon or scrambled eggs get trampled on in a far more prevalant manner.

Even the one reply to me from a self-proclaimed absolutist didn't bother to defend the political speech and petition of government, just said that they were present!

No, this is not the phenomenon that post is referring to.

No, your comment is an example of "argument by joke" and "false equivalency".

The bad faith free speech argument that somehow applies to only some people, to only one side of the political divide, but never to the other was prevalent mainstream argument for years now. Some peoples free speech was sacred and if you criticized or opposed them, the criticism and opposition themselves did not counted as free speech - even if it in fact consisted of speech only.

So like, kicking at those people is entirely fair. Because they actively damaged "free speech". Not that they care or ever cared.

THat's basically my activity on HN. 10% arguing why I like pancakes, and 90% replying to the stream of people accusing me of hating waffles.