How is an optional banning and censorship policy different from a mandatory one,
How is "X" different from "literal opposite of X"?
Yeah, that's a tough one. A real head-scratcher.
The point I’m trying to say is that for example, it’s a choice to dig up certain stuff, and it’s a choice to try to get the person fired for it, and it’s a choice to fire the person for it
By all means, let’s have a discussion about “at-will” employment. I’m concerned about that too.
But that’s different from firing someone for behavior that makes their colleagues or customers feel unwelcome. If your actions make the workplace not work well,, you might be at risk at losing your job. Though to be honest if you’re powerful or in a group with power, odds are you’ll still face no consequences as has been the usual outcome forever. (Certain people are freaking out about “cancel culture” now because they’re actually facing some social consequences for their speech for the first time ever, while everyone else has always had to deal with those consequences.)
You don't kick a person off a platform because you think they are wrong. You let them speak and then see how what they say and think holds up.
It's called freedom. Try it some time. One day, law suits for this kind of un-Americana garbage will win every single time. Sue them out of existence. They deserve it.
Ah, yes. Use the power of the government to force a private company to allow anyone to use their private space, in any way that person wants to.
I can smell the “freedom” from here.
If you want to see Berenson’s nonsense, he’s very active posting it on his Substack. He’s not been silenced.
I myself have been on a forced Twitter timeout (due to some admittedly uncharitable words about a certain Senator), and I’ve not been “silenced.” Look—Here I am!
But more to the point, if Twitter decides it wants to ban me from its platform for a week or forever, that’s its decision. And it doesn’t need to justify its decision to me or anyone else. No matter how much I might miss posting cat pictures (I do miss that), shitposting, or doing whatever, Twitter doesn’t have to let me use its resources to do it.
From there, things get pretty crazy, with a lot of it just being performative nonsense.
This seems to be the only reason for Biss and Nunes to do this. It’s performative outrage, and they plan to use the transcript to show how they stood up against the DEMOCRAT FAKE NEWS MEDIA who CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH to gain support (and by support I mean money) from the GOP base.
Or they’ve both lost their freaking minds. It could go either way, I suppose. What’s that line about smoking your own supply?
Now, we are told by a new high-priesthood, that what for the vast sweep of human history would have been an unexceptional view -- that biological sex is an important reality, and that segregating latrines, prisons and athletic competitions on its basis is a benefit to women -- is "bigotry"
So you’re upset because you’re being criticized for opinions that people used to let slide. You’re upset because other people are publicly challenging your opinions, and you’d always assumed that your opinion is the natural default and it’s everyone else—not you—who has to face criticism.
Well welcome to the world.
Calling someone a bigot is not censorship, and no one is obligated to find your opinion worthy of debate or discussion.
And I take exception to the use of "snowflake" in the headline. It's become the left's version of "n-word" when speaking of anyone white.
Don’t be ridiculous. Everyone knows the proper term for stupid white dudes is “Mayonnaise Boy”.
The punitive damages are also supported by the fact that the statist and stoic philosophy and ideology and Keynesian economics promulgated by the Defendant as earnestly implemented by the US governance, education and other institutions since 1930 has led to tremendous economic losses.
Georgalis v. Zeno, et al.
When I first read the proposal, my instinct was that it was just the random brain fart of some natsec advisor who doesn't understand how telecom works or the mammoth influence companies like AT&T have over such policy
Knowing this Administration, my first thought was that the advisor has a significant financial stake in a company that would get a contract to build this out.