> No. It serves as a defense for people to criticize government. It's why I can insult and talk terrible of president Turnip (spit) and not fear the gulag.

> Theres different ways to protest. Being an obvious target isn't what I do.

How do you reconcile those two statements?

Think of https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/...

Pay close attention to section "General Interference with Organizations and Production" pages 28-32.

The point is that your statements here are completely contradictory. First you say:

> "Its why I can insult and talk terrible of president Turnip (spit) and not fear the gulag."

But then you say:

> "But I also stay quiet publicly. Speaking out is a way to get the hammer."

In other words, you're afraid to exercise your first amendment rights. You feel that you can't, in fact "insult and talk terrible of president Turnip" without unacceptable consequences.

I said it in the other comment to him.

He is lying or suffering cognitive dissonance.

You cannot rectify his statements in another way, beyond the third option that calls his mental faculties into question.

I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he’s mentally all there, but that leads to my aforementioned options for them.

I agree, although I think lying is the least likely. It's more likely cognitive dissonance or simply cognitive limitations.

He is lying or suffering cognitive dissonance.

A lot of people get angry when I call out people as liars, but sometimes these people are just fucking lying to everyone and you have to call a spade a spade.