Not necessarily.
It’s called arguing a conclusion to your audience in terms of premises they’ll accept & understand.
The conclusion is “censorship is dangerous”.
The premise “fascists are pieces of shit” doesn’t support that.
That’s a separate argument entirely.
Moreover, fascists are unlikely to accept that premise.
Arguing that is a great way to make fascists stop listening, which people who don’t know how to argue excel at.
Not necessarily. It’s called arguing a conclusion to your audience in terms of premises they’ll accept & understand.
The conclusion is “censorship is dangerous”. The premise “fascists are pieces of shit” doesn’t support that. That’s a separate argument entirely.
Moreover, fascists are unlikely to accept that premise. Arguing that is a great way to make fascists stop listening, which people who don’t know how to argue excel at.