The USSC does not say that "money is speech"

[cthulu2016]

24. In this context it is hardly name-calling.

In the context of any online argument, Prosense is a nihilist. It is her mode of argument... to admit to no reality outside the argument itself. To accept no authority, no fact, no argument that does not equal Prosense being right.

It is a highly effective approach to online argument, but in the exchange I was commenting upon, the one party will surely find himself frustrated, since Prosense is not likely to accept the sky being blue if it is not helpful.

For instance, the fellow, having rejected my advice, is currently trying to get Prosense to admit to any definition of "book." It will not happen, since the proposition in play is Prosense saying that she opposes banning books, and accepting *any* definition of book would subject that statement to examination.

But by shrugging off the idea that there is a definable thing called book, the statement "I do not support banning books," is beyond examination.

If you are thinking of Turgenev's FATHERS AND SONS where a nihilist is a bearded man with one of those old fashioned round bombs to throw at some arch-duke or another... I stipulate that Prosense is not that kind of nihilist.

In that light, I edited the offending post, lest anyone think Prosense a bearded fellow circa 1900.