>You were clearly labeling demagoguery as bad speech.

Nope. Not at all. I was labeling Demagoguery as demagoguery. Not "bad speech" which is WAY more generalized, and is a disingenuous the way that you changed what I said.

>>have all kinds of panels to decide stuff.

>Yes, government bodies, not individual companies.

Yes. Governmental bodies decide stuff. You completely left out that private companies can do as they wish. As long as it is not a protected group, a business can prevent you from coming into their store if they deem that your nose hairs are too long.

It feels like you are deliberately ignoring what I wrote to shoehorn it into your Procrustean bed.

>>Yes, speech can be limited.

>It's not because you can that you should. Some countries limit most criticism of the government.

I wrote very specifically what I was talking about, but yet again, you choose to ignore what I wrote. It's like, I write something like, "Let's pass a law saying you can't jump off the rim of the Grand Canyon. Because, first, it goes against preserving life which society is for; second, it will psychically scar children for life if they see someone splatting on the canyon floor; and third, who's going to pick up the body?" And then you "rebut" by saying, "Oh, and what gives YOU that right? If we can't jump off a cliff, then you're going to say that can't we jump off a street curb. When will the madness ever end? What is all this banning about? Who is the decider who decides when we can or can't jump off a canyon rim or off a street curb?" That's how you are arguing.

>>very few people decided what protected classes are. They decided for us.

>That's what a elected democracy does (if it was a direct democracy, the same thing would happen, but different people).

That's what I said.

>It's still better than letting companies do what they want.

Corporate law is well-defined. Here's the California corporations code: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpand...

There's also all kinds of case law.

When you read all the corporate code and case law for each state and for the nation, get back to me.

All companies do what they want. They decide what products to sell. They put out marketing materials. They open bank accounts. They do what they want.

And again, and again, you ignore what I said. I have said that it is mainly the Republicans who are complaining about this right now. And I gave you examples - that the Republicans want corporations to be able to do what they want, like deny birth control at hospitals or allow companies to not bake wedding cakes for gay marriage and ALL kinds of other things. It's only when it bites THEM in the ass that they cry and whine like little b-tches. And the topping hypocrisy, whic I wrote about and again you ignored, is that they created their own Twitter, called Parlor, and they kick off anyone that is not conservative. Oh, the hypocrisy.

>>In the same way, the government could pass a law saying "No demagoguery."

>But they don't, since that'd just be used against people you dislike (here it seems to be "republicans" for you). The government can do what it wants, that doesn't mean it should. Democracy is just trying to do the best thing thinking the majority of people is the least worse tyrant.

Of course they don't, Captain. It's not to be used against people I dislike, it is to be used against demagogues. I included the link as to what demagogues are. And it is not "republicans" for me. Trump clearly and absolutely is a demagogue. Not according to me, but by all definitions that have been around for over 2,000 years. Which you are not acknowledging, surprise, surprise, although I specifically wrote that.

I have never had any issues with any presidents before Trump. I never thought that any of them were demagogues. I didn't like some of them, but that is a different issue. Trump tried to subvert the entire government to his personal fiefdom. Again, read the wiki definition of demagogue. Did you? Here it is, again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue Read it. Learn something.

>Democracy is just trying to do the best thing thinking the majority of people is the least worse tyrant.

No. We are picking the least worst leader. There should never be any tyrants, which is what I'm saying. You are defending and allowing the possibility of tyrants, not I.

And again, I am NOT democrat nor repubican. I'm independent and have tons of problems with the democrats, too.