Wednesday’s internet win.
Wednesday’s internet win.
I hope and pray that the president, first lady, and everyone in his inner circle who are currently experiencing the Coronavirus also experience a complete and speedy recovery.
But I’m not extending any empathy, or simpathy, and Trump supporters who are currently all broken up and clutching their pearls over the meanness and snark of some on the left, after having spent the last several years either being strategically silent about, or making excuses for, or cheering the president’s rhetoric and conduct towards women, people with disabilities, and damn near every minority in this country can save their outrage. I do not want to hear one word about civility, or empathy, or simpathy, or charity, or even just plain old norms from any of these people.
Stellar job culture warriors! You’ve jinned up so much performative outrage over the Cuties movie that it’s now on everybody’s radar and, even better, should anyone wish to address any of the claims you’re making or frantically sharing about it, they actually have to watch it. That’s not even touching the civil libertarians who will absolutely get involved if Sen. Ted Cruz gets his way and Netflix is investigated over it, or even if there’s a credible threat of investigation. We have this thing in the US. It’s called the First Amendment. And it makes a whole bunch of things a whole bunch of us don’t like not only legal, but protected. So if you have a problem with the movie, don’t watch it, and don’t let your kids watch it. If you really have a problem with the exploitation of children, including in the pageant circuit, persuade your friends and family who are parents not to allow their children to participate, and do the harder work of assisting organizations that exist to help exploited children instead of virtue signaling about a movie on social media because it’s easier and more satisfying.
Ted you really should make sure to tell the folks in your office to remember to check the whoisguard box when they register domains this really is getting pathetic.
Area podcaster with a law degree who has never stepped into a courtroom let alone participated in a criminal trial would like to assure you that the case for Kyle Rittenhouse is nonetheless rockin!
This gaslighting is wild. There's a far better case for Rittenhouse on self-defense than there is for Jacob Blake being unjustifiably shot — yet Biden has suggested that the police are utterly at fault in the latter case. https://t.co/WyGeyh4LdQ
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) August 31, 2020
Update: We’re now up to a week of bullshit on this, (see the comments to this post) and as of today we’re up to three shitbirds. Most of the first in the comments to this post under 6 separate accounts after the first one was blocked.
No but Kyle Rittenhouse (aledgedly of course) crossed state lines while armed and then shot two people at a protest and a week later you’re stil struggling
to condemn that as well as high-profile Republicans lionizing him.
· Aug 31
There is no evidence the Trump supporter shot in Portland was a white nationalist, or that Kyle Rittenhouse was either. The people burning American cities
are Antifa agitators and BLM rioters and looters (most marchers are not, of course, rioters and looters).
Disabled people OCCUPIED A FEDERAL BUILDING for over three weeks to put into effect an ADA precursor, which had been on the books for 4 years.
— Matt May (@mattmay) July 26, 2020
Shields are an indicator that people 1) do not want to be shot by police crowd control measures and 2) expect the police to try to shoot them.
I *wish* that supported the "looking for trouble" conclusion. But y'all have taken shots at too many peaceful people for that to follow https://t.co/RJS2SAvmgi
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 26, 2020
People who spent decades trying to take guns out of other peoples hands now very upset gun owners aren’t coming out to defend them.
How about this instead:
DHS is doing bad stuff but shooting Federal officers is probably not the correct response. https://t.co/2hKZxaevox
— Lyman Stone 石來民 🦬🦬🦬 (@lymanstoneky) July 22, 2020
No actually this is people calling bullshit on the “we need all the guns in case of government overreach” NRA talking point and pointing out the glaring inconsistency of people who were more than willing to brandish firearms over stay-at-home orders and masks but have been strategically silent when there’s actual government overreach going on.
Does every gun owner deploy this disingenuous talking point or was every gun owner brandishing firearms over stay-at-home orders and masks? Of course not. Not even most. But when a lobbying organization like the NRA or the ACLU or pick one is seen to be strategically silent when it matters, calling that organization, or the people who spout its rhetoric, on it is fair game.
People aren’t mad at that letter and the people behind it because they hate free speech. A spooled thread.
"The reason people are so mad at the pro-free-speech letter is that they aren't really in favor of free speech. Not when it comes to anyone who isn't their ally, at least."https://t.co/1fEZyjRMIU
— reason (@reason) July 9, 2020
People are at best skeptical of and at worst outraged by the free speech argument being made in the Harper’s letter because when the inevitable shit starts, (like harassment, for example), the best the people with tons of followers and clout can do is post the obligatory “of course harassment is bad” tweet and once that’s done it’s really easy to just walk away.
I have yet to see any of the people railing against cancel culture address the trade-off trans and other minorities are expected to put up with so their free speech rights can be safeguarded.
And by address, I mean in something other than an abstract fashion. Because it’s really easy to just post that “of course harassment/bigotry is bad” tweet and then just go on with your day while the mentions of the person you’ve decided to go after to your tons of followers are a complete trashfire.
If we were operating in a world where there wasn’t near instantaneous communication, like blogs for example, and we were dealing with a situation where harassment and other such could be and would be completely deleted by the original author, then I could totally understand a near absolute free speech stance and would even go along with it.
But we aren’t operating in that sphere, and as high minded as this whole free speech argument is, it’s not the people making it who are bearing the brunt of the fall-out.
And it would be nice if there were some serious discussion of the trade-offs and maybe even some attempts at putting forth solutions that ensure that everyone’s free speech is protected while also ensuring that all the bullshit can be properly addressed.
It would also be nice if there were some serious attempts at limiting what gets labeled as cancel culture.
I’d suggest narrowing the scope to people being fired for posts on their personal social media by online mobs. And by personal I don’t mean the one you do all your public relations/promotion of your work ETC. on.
Until there is some serious grappling with everything surrounding all this, including the inevitable pile-ons and other shit that happens to marginalized people online by the influencers championing the canceled, there are a lot of people who have damn good reasons to be skeptical of cultural free speech, if not legal as well.
And the general idea that a price has to be paid for freedom isn’t going to cut it. Neither is “you just hate free speech.”