Non-engagement with the thesis was the point, not the particulars of how he fell from polite society.

When people speak in bad faith, you don’t have to listen to them. The boy who cried wolf was in the wrong, not the townspeople who ignored him. Perhaps this is the one time when a normally un-reliable source is presenting a thesis that is intellectually sound - but unless a more reliable source picks it up, it’s not worth taking seriously.

Conveniently, everyone across the political aisle from you speaks in bad faith.

That’s definitely an easy position to fall into, but not an absolute truth. I’m quite sure most people against hate speech laws are coming from a reasonable fear of restrictions on speech. How slipper is the slope, is a very fair thing to discuss and debate

This. I actually don't have a strong position on the topic of the thread (the Irish law in question), other than personal experience of living in the country and not remotely finding it to be the oppressive thought-policing regime the thread describes, and generally agreeing that hate speech is a bad thing for society.

My point is that the thread is poor content written by a clearly unreliable source. I'm happy to engage with ideas I disagree with when they're presented intelligently with insight, but as soon as someone starts talking about world governments taking their orders from some hidden superior powers I'm out thank you very much.