If it's not your argument, it's still what the thread is about.
"Defending people whos [sic] sole purpose is detrimental to the well being [of others]" is very much protected speech, for two reasons: i) in a plurality, no two people agree fully on what is/isn't detrimental; and ii) no party, government, or state power can be trusted to fairly and impartially judge which ideas are unworthy of a defense.
Progressive Tolerance[SUP]®[/SUP]
"Teaching deplorables love and respect since 1962."
$39.99
$29.99
$10.99
$5.99
$2.99
$1.99
$0.99
$0.49
$0.19
$0.06
$0.03 OBO
I'm a hard-nosed, fundamentalist, black-and-white, traditionalist religious conservative--by my own admission. It's pretty bad when in four out of five online arguments I find myself pleading with self-described "liberals" for less war, less censorship, fewer speech prohibitions, fewer bans, less surveillance, fewer registries, permitting alternatives to public schools, permitting vaccine opt-outs, permitting pit bull ownership, not jailing people for "improper pronoun use"...