not false dilema. i only argued against his position by showing that his assertion, even in the extreme worst case such as somebody broadcasting "kill ur bb" would not result in everybody killing ther bb. therefore somebody broadcasting "get rid of browns" does not therefore mean that listeners are brainless zombies who do what they are told will go get rid of browns.

the broadcaster doesnt control my body. i can listen to a broadcast, respect the persons right to assert that we should "get rid of browns", and then simply disagree and think that person is at best ignorant and at worst evil. my capacity to do so is a fundamental requirement for humans to be sentient and participate in a democracy.

if listeners really are the brainless zombies some of the people here advocate for 'protecting' weve got a bigger problem.

if someone broadcasts "kill ur bb" then we should punish those went and killed a bb. the broadcaster has not damaged property or person.

my freedom of speech, whether serious or satire, should not be limited just because there are evil people in the world.

The information operations do not focus on silly messages the sponsors will not profit from.

It is about intolerants demanding that their intolerance and inhumane views will be normalized. By the time enough regular people have shifted towards normalizing it, you are too late to come in action. Because you don't have the minds for stopping that.

That is how you burn Jews in concentration camps. That is how you deport Untermensche without due process. Regular people consent to it, and with that they block the anti-dote.

Autocracy is war for the mind. Because to few stand to benefit from it, you have to be lured in via moral degradation.