this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
194 points (87.3% liked)
The Right Can't Meme
785 readers
1 users here now
About
This community is about making fun of dumb right wing memes. Here you will find some of the cringiest memes that the right has ever posted on the internet.
Rules
-
All posts must be memes containing right wing cringe
-
No unrelated content
-
No bigotry
-
Spammers and Trolls will be instantly banned. No Exceptions.
Other Communities
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Everyone else is wrong. Caution is advised: I'm being serious and it's a serious problem. He's talking about government censorship of media, specifically Twitter, but the problem is widespread and getting worse.
I'm disappointed that liberals who have been smart for so long can so easily become dumb as bricks because they lack the emotional maturity to criticize their own side/admit that the other side is right on this issue, if only incidentally. At the least one should be able to acknowledge that it's been expedient for the Right to champion free speech because doing so directly protects their interests—and I don't give them any more credit than that—but at least they're unintentionally doing the right thing. The Left unfortunately deserves criticism, not credit, because for reasons it's been expedient for them to censor speech because it directly forwards their interests.
In the end it's folly to think that any side is necessarily better or more just than the other, or to think sides have any important meaning at all beyond logistical maneuvering. It baffles me that the vast majority of adults in America can watch their enemy do a thing and vehemently denounce it, then turn around and watch their ally do something perfectly analogous, if not exactly the same, and stubbornly defend it without giving an inch; without a modicum of empathy, remorse, or self-reflection. Worse is that none of it even fucking matters. People are ready to have a political orgasm when the other side gets caught mishandling secret files, but get bored hearing about how the economy is burning to the ground. Neither side gives a fuck about anything that matters because unless it can be used as political ammo, neither side will bring it up unless they have to.
A little bit of my soul died the day I realized the party I championed wasn't so much better as it was not currently in power (or in danger of losing power), and was simply temporarily more interested in saying and occasionally even doing the right things—the absolute least amount possible—to return to power (or remain in power). Those that think I'm being the least bit cynical should know that they are not qualified to have any kind of meaningful or productive discussion on these topics—they're wasting their breath at best, unwitting tools of propaganda at worst—and their partisan bickering collectively is literally the biggest reason we will never get out of this mess. A lot of you are young and I don't hold it against you, but don't take too long to get your shit straight. The world really is depending on you to direct your energy at the right causes, and Elon Musk isn't one of them.
Can you give me an example of the government censoring free speech on Twitter?
Shit dude, there are so many. In my opinion the most egregious example, but also the most politically charged, is the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Even if you don't think the actual substance of the claims is true, the government's attempts to censor it are definitely real. But I'm not here to debate the merits of any specific instance of censorship ad nauseam.
At the heart of the matter in general is the question of whether the government should be allowed not to "make" a company censor something, but to "ask" them to "voluntarily remove" it. Technically, that's all they've been doing—and even if they were doing so strictly only in good faith, it would still be contentious to argue that it's ok for government to "strongly suggest", i.e. exert influence over, what companies should and should not allow people to say—but that's not all they've been doing.
What they're doing is exactly what you would expect them to do if they wanted to subvert the system to stay within the technical limits of legality, while getting away with de facto full-blown censorship: bully the companies with lies and threats of reprisal until they complied—they technically don't have to, but it's in their best interest to do so—or, barring their ability to do that, colluding closely with private "watchdog" companies that are the next-best thing to being government entities (they receive and, importantly, depend on significant federal money, hold regular weekly meetings with relevant agencies to discuss agendas, etc) to accomplish the same thing with much the same tactics. The latter is what happened to Twitter immediately after a court barred the current administration from doing the former, and is still happening to them right now, as well as to Rumble, notable for being the biggest YouTube alternative.
So who was the president when the Hunter Biden laptop “story” was “censored”? You seem to be very interested in which side is doing things, and I just want to understand who was in power during the first example you went to.
Also, here is the actual text of the first amendment:
Can you provide an example of when the government violated this first amendment in regard to Twitter?
Nah. Trying doing an iota of work to address by arguments instead of trying to convince me I owe you pages of answers for nothing but more fish bait.