11 ms·

I think people are finally starting to understand that public speech in the 21st century and public speech in the 20th century are not the same thing at all. T

I think people are finally starting to understand that public speech in the 21st century and public speech in the 20th century are not the same thing at all. Tweeting your opinion in 2020 is analogous to going on national television and airing your opinion in 1990. Would you feel comfortable airing a controversial opinion on national television? Would you feel comfortable that you still have your job and your reputation after going in front of the nation and saying "I think interracial marriages should be illegal"? No? Then don't tweet it because that's basically the same thing.

rukittenme 6y ago
> Would you feel comfortable that you still have your job and your reputation after going in front of the nation and saying "I think interracial marriages should be illegal"? Don't you think that's a bit disingenuous? People aren't being canceled for having overt racist beliefs. They're being canceled for having polite (but political) disagreements. The issue at play here is large-scale mob action. In the online space, it takes the form of bullying and cancel culture. Terry Crews, for example, is in trouble for using the word "coon". But Terry Crews didn't call anyone a coon. He was called coon and made up an acronym that he felt could empower himself and others. Whether Terry's career is destroyed or not, the attempt to bully him out of the public eye is there and it sends a message. > "Take what we give you." > "You won't be given a charitable reading of anything you say." > "Your beliefs will be stretched and twisted to the extreme." > "And if they can't be then we'll attack you for what you didn't say."
- helen___keller 6y ago
  > Don't you think that's a bit disingenuous? People aren't being canceled for having overt racist beliefs. They're being canceled for having polite (but political) disagreements. I picked a controversial opinion. Your beef seems to be that mundane political opinions shouldn't be controversial. I agree with you, but that's not really relevant to the point I'm trying to make. The point im trying to make is that some people treated Facebook or Twitter like a group of friends, when any digital post or recording can instantly become more like a nationally televised segment.
  - rukittenme 6y ago
    I understand your point but Terry Crew's probably understands his tweets reach millions of people. He uses it to advertise his TV shows. And I have to have some sympathy for people who live their entire internet lives is absolute obscurity only to have their worst moment (or maybe just their most misunderstood) be promoted to a "nationally televised" level post-hoc.
    - helen___keller 6y ago
      > And I have to have some sympathy for people who live their entire internet lives is absolute obscurity only to have their worst moment (or maybe just their most misunderstood) be promoted to a "nationally televised" level post-hoc. I do too. It should be known that the internet is not an obscure place. It is equivalent to a broadcast on national television. If nobody read your posts online it's because you were lucky, that's all. Personally I took effort to go back and delete posts that I made in my youth. I hope others do the same.
- jjk166 6y ago
  In private conversation, you have a chance to clarify what you mean and some knowledge of your audience to anticipate how they will understand what you say. Online, your brief statement will be taken in isolation and interpreted by potentially thousands of different people with different perspectives. Have you noticed how there are no polite but political disagreements on national television? Talking heads either say things so uncontroversial that no one could complain, or they get into a fight with another talking head. This is not a coincidence. You might think your view is polite and reasonable, but there are plenty of people out there who would consider it overtly racist or otherwise bigoted. You phrase this as if there was some secretive cabal actively trying to destroy Terry Crews when really there's just a small number of random people pissed off about a racial slur.
  - notmyfriend 6y ago
    And a media system that pretends some fringe people opinion is worthy of news coverage.
    - Theory5 6y ago
      Which has been a staple of the news for many decades now, and will be for decades to come. Finding those niche views most people disapprove of and getting everyone's emotions up keeps them engaged.
treeman79 6y ago
From the research only one group feels comfortable airing opinions. China solved this problem. After a civil war that led to creation of Taiwan. Now everyone only has one opinion. As a bonus they have a lot of free re-education camps. - 1984
- katktv 6y ago
  China does the same things the Republican government would do without hesitation. Are kids in cages and racist war crimes in Middle East somehow dissimilar to China's genocide of ethnic minorities rooted in, say, islamophobia (Uighur Muslims)?
  - treeman79 6y ago
    Us troops were actively trying to stop schools with little girls from getting blown up. Countries infrastructure was rebuilt. Then we left. No one is innocent but there are differences.
    - katktv 6y ago
      >Us troops were actively trying to stop schools with little girls from getting blown up By blowing up other schools, hospitals, weddings, and countless of civilians? War crimes are war crimes. And it's not like we don't know that the US is primarily interested in middle eastern oil, and not actually spreading peace in the region.
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        > the US is primarily interested in middle eastern oil This is a very vague phrase. The US does things which seem to drive up the price of oil, and things that seem to drive it down. The US economy also involves consuming a lot of oil and producing a lot of oil. So I don't know how you relate foreign policy in the mideast to that. "Interest in oil" can explain anything, anything that raises the price and anything that lowers it, and therefore nothing. Blaming the defense industry makes more sense to me, except that the US defense industry can and does sell arms worldwide, so why do they particularly need the US to be involved in a war?
cgriswald 6y ago
Yes, that’s what people would like others to believe. As long as you don’t tweet obviously racist things, you’ll be fine. Unfortunately the mob is much more capricious. Read the article for an example.
- helen___keller 6y ago
  You're trying to examine the morality of the mob. Obviously the mob doesn't have a consistent and justifiable moral stance; it's a mob. My point is that when you post online, you're not publically speaking to your neighbors from the sidewalk. You're broadcasting nationally. Including to an angry mob. So no, I wouldn't agree with "As long as you don’t tweet obviously racist things, you’ll be fine." I would rather say, if you don't post online, don't have any recordings of yourself posted online, and otherwise manage to prevent yourself from having any significant online presence, you'll be fine.
  - growlist 6y ago
    > Obviously the mob doesn't have a consistent and justifiable moral stance; it's a mob. Problem with that is that one mob is given unhindered support for venting their spleen, whereas whereas the opposing mob is deplatformed, doxxed, etc. etc. I don't even need to say which side is which, do I? We all know.
    - helen___keller 6y ago
      Sure, I mean it's basically tautological, but the populist mob enforces the popular opinion. I'm sure someone's gonna chew me out for this opinion, but even though i disagree with "mob justice" on principle at the same time i DO feel good when I see mob justice taken on someone who, in my gut, I feel really deserves it. I acknowledge that feeling is the problem. I'm aware of that. For a probably not-too-controversial example, I hate Scientology. And way back when, Anonymous/4chan took on Scientology, and maybe didn't completely take it down but certainly made a good effort. And I cheered the whole way, because I hate Scientology. But I don't agree with mob justice. I don't know, it's a contradiction logically but that's definitely a thing.
52-6F-62 6y ago
Isn’t it also that many people conflate the freedom to speak with the freedom from consequence? The government isn’t cracking down on people for what they say. But if you broadcast something that goes against your employer’s values (whatever they may be) you can probably expect some blowback—for example. And you nailed it when you said tweeting is akin to broadcasting, because it is. It is not akin to having a discussion with a group of people. It just doesn’t feel like broadcasting maybe—so people have a false sense about it.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  > "freedom from consequence" Hiding behind the word "consequence" doesn't fool anybody, you know. It's well understood that it refers to doxxing, intimidation, and attempts to injure the subject's livelihood by inducing their employer to terminate them without cause, none of which is legal.
  - pc86 6y ago
    Terminating someone without cause is certainly legal (in the US, anyway), and usually the safest way to avoid wrongful termination suits. But the GP is actually right - people misunderstand that "freedom of speech" means "freedom [from government interference in my] speech [except under very specific circumstances]." Any other interpretation has no basis in law or reality. Like the scene from Liar, Liar, my employer can compel me to say that the blue pen is actually red, and fire me if I don't. Me taking the pen to court and showing it to the judge won't prove anything, won't get my job back, etc. Picking obviously abhorrent things like anti-miscegenation makes the argument easier. If a coworker was vocally against interracial marriage I would expect and demand that my employer terminate them, but I would be against the government making it a crime to speak out against interracial marriage.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > Any other interpretation has no basis in law or reality. Err, if you say something, the government also protects you from other citizens attacking you physically, not just the government. They often fail, but there's no hint of "if you say something and somebody is upset, they're free to punch you".
medee 6y ago
>Would you feel comfortable that you still have your job and your reputation after going in front of the nation and saying "I think interracial marriages should be illegal"? That's not what people are getting fired for, though. People always do this- argue for speech limitations by using examples like "we should kill all the X", while the people they then ban have said things like "I think diversity decreases social trust and that there are biological differences between men and women".
- helen___keller 6y ago
  See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23985895 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23985895
xwdv 6y ago
Depends, if I could go on National Television in a hoodie and mask and air out a list of grievances I have with the wretched society and what should be done about it, maybe I would.
growlist 6y ago
> controversial opinion And who decides this? All the big tech companies appear to lean globalist/left. No?
- pc86 6y ago
  Society defined controversial, as it always has, and always will. And "globalist" as opposed to what, exactly?
  - growlist 6y ago
    > Society defined controversial, as it always has, and always will. You honestly think there aren't powerful opinion shaping efforts underway? If so I wish I lived in your world - I cannot get away from the incessant politics on any media platform whatsoever. > And "globalist" as opposed to what, exactly? Are you seriously suggesting there's no alternative? And seriously questioning the legtimacy of the term globalist by putting it in double quotes? If so that's the end of the conversation from my side.
    - cozuya 6y ago
      Excellent non-answer to what a globalist is. Who are some prominent globalists? What are their agendas? What do they look like? What is the opposite of a globalist? What are some links from balanced and fairly researched news sources that can tell us about your views on globalists? Hmmmmmmmmm.
      - growlist 6y ago
        Err... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism
      - pc86 6y ago
        Because in it's best interpretation, "globalist" is a thinly veiled insult for "person even slightly more liberal than I am, who I don't like," even though if you look up the actual definition, everyone with a functioning brain should be a globalist: > noun a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world. I don't know many people who think we shouldn't take world events and developments into account with regard to our economic and foreign policy. So any time someone uses globalist as an insult or pejorative term, I have to wonder what they really mean. Because it's always code for something else.
Funes- 6y ago
There is now only a single safe way to exist in the public sphere: - Anonymously over the Internet. A private text, a public tweet, a personal blog post or video, anything caught by a camera without your consent or awareness. All are susceptible of being used to ruin your life if a large enough group of people are willing to.
- pc86 6y ago
  The last half of that sentence, which is pretty important, is "and you do something offensive enough to a large enough group of people that they want to ruin your life." The examples of people "accidentally" ruining their own lives with a racist or sexist tweet is a pretty short list.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    "Offensive" is both in the eye of the beholder and changes as time goes on. An innocuous and innocent opinion today could be, in 10 years, considered extremely offensive. Anyone can drag that "now offensive" comment out of the past to nail you. I can think of jokes I made 20 years ago that were not even slightly offensive at the time, that would get me instantly fired today. Good thing I didn't post them on a medium like the Internet that is infinitely achievable and searchable.
    - Frondo 6y ago
      I have not once, in all the years of hand-wringing over "cancel culture," seen a rich person made poor, or a famous person made obscure, by "the mob" finding old tweets and publicizing them. Not once. For all the power the mob has to ruin lives, you'd think there would be lives ruined -- not mildly inconvenienced or temporarily embarrassed.
      - suizi 6y ago
        Some people have lost their jobs over a tweet. Rich people and celebrities are the most visible but it isn't as if little people haven't been swept up on occasion.
drewcoo 6y ago
It's more akin to publishing an obnoxious letter to the editor in a 20th century newspaper. - The circulation was limited but everyone in the blast radius was aware of the affront. Just like today's echo chambers. - It would generate a huge response from readership. Because people were aware and knew they could involve themselves. - That could get someone fired. The opinion writer included. - It could make the newspaper stop accepting any more submissions from the person, often because the paper felt social and economic pressure. Deplatforming! - It could also focus attention on a problem and get a community involved. Just like social media today. Communication in ye olde 20th century had roughly the same dynamics. Probably because it was among people.
zozbot234 6y ago
Usenet was a thing in 1990, and people absolutely did post their opinions there. It was nothing like going on national TV, even though it was quite possible for a Usenet post to go "viral" (resulting in months-long threads with many hundred replies, sometimes cross-posted elsewhere on the internet). > Would you feel comfortable that you still have your job and your reputation after going in front of the nation and saying "I think interracial marriages should be illegal"? Funny choice there, since that used to be conventional wisdom well into the 1960s and later, at least in some places. You'd get in trouble for saying the opposite!
raxxorrax 6y ago
I think the number of people that tweet these specific things is vastly exaggerated, a mob tries to attach these opinions to certain groups to have an excuse to hate them, completely neglecting the reality that there isn't a group that justifies a prosecution complex that dictates that certain people should be removed from the public sphere by association. This is why we have this article. That TV is loosing its audience is no accident and tangentially related.

rukittenme 6y ago

> Would you feel comfortable that you still have your job and your reputation after going in front of the nation and saying "I think interracial marriages should be illegal"? Don't you think that's a bit disingenuous? People aren't being canceled for having overt racist beliefs. They're being canceled for having polite (but political) disagreements. The issue at play here is large-scale mob action. In the online space, it takes the form of bullying and cancel culture. Terry Crews, for example, is in trouble for using the word "coon". But Terry Crews didn't call anyone a coon. He was called coon and made up an acronym that he felt could empower himself and others. Whether Terry's career is destroyed or not, the attempt to bully him out of the public eye is there and it sends a message. > "Take what we give you." > "You won't be given a charitable reading of anything you say." > "Your beliefs will be stretched and twisted to the extreme." > "And if they can't be then we'll attack you for what you didn't say."

helen___keller 6y ago
> Don't you think that's a bit disingenuous? People aren't being canceled for having overt racist beliefs. They're being canceled for having polite (but political) disagreements. I picked a controversial opinion. Your beef seems to be that mundane political opinions shouldn't be controversial. I agree with you, but that's not really relevant to the point I'm trying to make. The point im trying to make is that some people treated Facebook or Twitter like a group of friends, when any digital post or recording can instantly become more like a nationally televised segment.
- rukittenme 6y ago
  I understand your point but Terry Crew's probably understands his tweets reach millions of people. He uses it to advertise his TV shows. And I have to have some sympathy for people who live their entire internet lives is absolute obscurity only to have their worst moment (or maybe just their most misunderstood) be promoted to a "nationally televised" level post-hoc.
  - helen___keller 6y ago
    > And I have to have some sympathy for people who live their entire internet lives is absolute obscurity only to have their worst moment (or maybe just their most misunderstood) be promoted to a "nationally televised" level post-hoc. I do too. It should be known that the internet is not an obscure place. It is equivalent to a broadcast on national television. If nobody read your posts online it's because you were lucky, that's all. Personally I took effort to go back and delete posts that I made in my youth. I hope others do the same.
jjk166 6y ago
In private conversation, you have a chance to clarify what you mean and some knowledge of your audience to anticipate how they will understand what you say. Online, your brief statement will be taken in isolation and interpreted by potentially thousands of different people with different perspectives. Have you noticed how there are no polite but political disagreements on national television? Talking heads either say things so uncontroversial that no one could complain, or they get into a fight with another talking head. This is not a coincidence. You might think your view is polite and reasonable, but there are plenty of people out there who would consider it overtly racist or otherwise bigoted. You phrase this as if there was some secretive cabal actively trying to destroy Terry Crews when really there's just a small number of random people pissed off about a racial slur.
- notmyfriend 6y ago
  And a media system that pretends some fringe people opinion is worthy of news coverage.
  - Theory5 6y ago
    Which has been a staple of the news for many decades now, and will be for decades to come. Finding those niche views most people disapprove of and getting everyone's emotions up keeps them engaged.

treeman79 6y ago

From the research only one group feels comfortable airing opinions. China solved this problem. After a civil war that led to creation of Taiwan. Now everyone only has one opinion. As a bonus they have a lot of free re-education camps. - 1984

katktv 6y ago
China does the same things the Republican government would do without hesitation. Are kids in cages and racist war crimes in Middle East somehow dissimilar to China's genocide of ethnic minorities rooted in, say, islamophobia (Uighur Muslims)?
- treeman79 6y ago
  Us troops were actively trying to stop schools with little girls from getting blown up. Countries infrastructure was rebuilt. Then we left. No one is innocent but there are differences.
  - katktv 6y ago
    >Us troops were actively trying to stop schools with little girls from getting blown up By blowing up other schools, hospitals, weddings, and countless of civilians? War crimes are war crimes. And it's not like we don't know that the US is primarily interested in middle eastern oil, and not actually spreading peace in the region.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      > the US is primarily interested in middle eastern oil This is a very vague phrase. The US does things which seem to drive up the price of oil, and things that seem to drive it down. The US economy also involves consuming a lot of oil and producing a lot of oil. So I don't know how you relate foreign policy in the mideast to that. "Interest in oil" can explain anything, anything that raises the price and anything that lowers it, and therefore nothing. Blaming the defense industry makes more sense to me, except that the US defense industry can and does sell arms worldwide, so why do they particularly need the US to be involved in a war?

cgriswald 6y ago

Yes, that’s what people would like others to believe. As long as you don’t tweet obviously racist things, you’ll be fine. Unfortunately the mob is much more capricious. Read the article for an example.

helen___keller 6y ago
You're trying to examine the morality of the mob. Obviously the mob doesn't have a consistent and justifiable moral stance; it's a mob. My point is that when you post online, you're not publically speaking to your neighbors from the sidewalk. You're broadcasting nationally. Including to an angry mob. So no, I wouldn't agree with "As long as you don’t tweet obviously racist things, you’ll be fine." I would rather say, if you don't post online, don't have any recordings of yourself posted online, and otherwise manage to prevent yourself from having any significant online presence, you'll be fine.
- growlist 6y ago
  > Obviously the mob doesn't have a consistent and justifiable moral stance; it's a mob. Problem with that is that one mob is given unhindered support for venting their spleen, whereas whereas the opposing mob is deplatformed, doxxed, etc. etc. I don't even need to say which side is which, do I? We all know.
  - helen___keller 6y ago
    Sure, I mean it's basically tautological, but the populist mob enforces the popular opinion. I'm sure someone's gonna chew me out for this opinion, but even though i disagree with "mob justice" on principle at the same time i DO feel good when I see mob justice taken on someone who, in my gut, I feel really deserves it. I acknowledge that feeling is the problem. I'm aware of that. For a probably not-too-controversial example, I hate Scientology. And way back when, Anonymous/4chan took on Scientology, and maybe didn't completely take it down but certainly made a good effort. And I cheered the whole way, because I hate Scientology. But I don't agree with mob justice. I don't know, it's a contradiction logically but that's definitely a thing.

52-6F-62 6y ago

Isn’t it also that many people conflate the freedom to speak with the freedom from consequence? The government isn’t cracking down on people for what they say. But if you broadcast something that goes against your employer’s values (whatever they may be) you can probably expect some blowback—for example. And you nailed it when you said tweeting is akin to broadcasting, because it is. It is not akin to having a discussion with a group of people. It just doesn’t feel like broadcasting maybe—so people have a false sense about it.

ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "freedom from consequence" Hiding behind the word "consequence" doesn't fool anybody, you know. It's well understood that it refers to doxxing, intimidation, and attempts to injure the subject's livelihood by inducing their employer to terminate them without cause, none of which is legal.
- pc86 6y ago
  Terminating someone without cause is certainly legal (in the US, anyway), and usually the safest way to avoid wrongful termination suits. But the GP is actually right - people misunderstand that "freedom of speech" means "freedom [from government interference in my] speech [except under very specific circumstances]." Any other interpretation has no basis in law or reality. Like the scene from Liar, Liar, my employer can compel me to say that the blue pen is actually red, and fire me if I don't. Me taking the pen to court and showing it to the judge won't prove anything, won't get my job back, etc. Picking obviously abhorrent things like anti-miscegenation makes the argument easier. If a coworker was vocally against interracial marriage I would expect and demand that my employer terminate them, but I would be against the government making it a crime to speak out against interracial marriage.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Any other interpretation has no basis in law or reality. Err, if you say something, the government also protects you from other citizens attacking you physically, not just the government. They often fail, but there's no hint of "if you say something and somebody is upset, they're free to punch you".

medee 6y ago

>Would you feel comfortable that you still have your job and your reputation after going in front of the nation and saying "I think interracial marriages should be illegal"? That's not what people are getting fired for, though. People always do this- argue for speech limitations by using examples like "we should kill all the X", while the people they then ban have said things like "I think diversity decreases social trust and that there are biological differences between men and women".

helen___keller 6y ago
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23985895 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23985895

xwdv 6y ago

Depends, if I could go on National Television in a hoodie and mask and air out a list of grievances I have with the wretched society and what should be done about it, maybe I would.

growlist 6y ago

> controversial opinion And who decides this? All the big tech companies appear to lean globalist/left. No?

pc86 6y ago
Society defined controversial, as it always has, and always will. And "globalist" as opposed to what, exactly?
- growlist 6y ago
  > Society defined controversial, as it always has, and always will. You honestly think there aren't powerful opinion shaping efforts underway? If so I wish I lived in your world - I cannot get away from the incessant politics on any media platform whatsoever. > And "globalist" as opposed to what, exactly? Are you seriously suggesting there's no alternative? And seriously questioning the legtimacy of the term globalist by putting it in double quotes? If so that's the end of the conversation from my side.
  - cozuya 6y ago
    Excellent non-answer to what a globalist is. Who are some prominent globalists? What are their agendas? What do they look like? What is the opposite of a globalist? What are some links from balanced and fairly researched news sources that can tell us about your views on globalists? Hmmmmmmmmm.
    - growlist 6y ago
      Err... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism
    - pc86 6y ago
      Because in it's best interpretation, "globalist" is a thinly veiled insult for "person even slightly more liberal than I am, who I don't like," even though if you look up the actual definition, everyone with a functioning brain should be a globalist: > noun a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world. I don't know many people who think we shouldn't take world events and developments into account with regard to our economic and foreign policy. So any time someone uses globalist as an insult or pejorative term, I have to wonder what they really mean. Because it's always code for something else.

Funes- 6y ago

There is now only a single safe way to exist in the public sphere: - Anonymously over the Internet. A private text, a public tweet, a personal blog post or video, anything caught by a camera without your consent or awareness. All are susceptible of being used to ruin your life if a large enough group of people are willing to.

pc86 6y ago
The last half of that sentence, which is pretty important, is "and you do something offensive enough to a large enough group of people that they want to ruin your life." The examples of people "accidentally" ruining their own lives with a racist or sexist tweet is a pretty short list.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  "Offensive" is both in the eye of the beholder and changes as time goes on. An innocuous and innocent opinion today could be, in 10 years, considered extremely offensive. Anyone can drag that "now offensive" comment out of the past to nail you. I can think of jokes I made 20 years ago that were not even slightly offensive at the time, that would get me instantly fired today. Good thing I didn't post them on a medium like the Internet that is infinitely achievable and searchable.
  - Frondo 6y ago
    I have not once, in all the years of hand-wringing over "cancel culture," seen a rich person made poor, or a famous person made obscure, by "the mob" finding old tweets and publicizing them. Not once. For all the power the mob has to ruin lives, you'd think there would be lives ruined -- not mildly inconvenienced or temporarily embarrassed.
    - suizi 6y ago
      Some people have lost their jobs over a tweet. Rich people and celebrities are the most visible but it isn't as if little people haven't been swept up on occasion.

drewcoo 6y ago

It's more akin to publishing an obnoxious letter to the editor in a 20th century newspaper. - The circulation was limited but everyone in the blast radius was aware of the affront. Just like today's echo chambers. - It would generate a huge response from readership. Because people were aware and knew they could involve themselves. - That could get someone fired. The opinion writer included. - It could make the newspaper stop accepting any more submissions from the person, often because the paper felt social and economic pressure. Deplatforming! - It could also focus attention on a problem and get a community involved. Just like social media today. Communication in ye olde 20th century had roughly the same dynamics. Probably because it was among people.

zozbot234 6y ago

Usenet was a thing in 1990, and people absolutely did post their opinions there. It was nothing like going on national TV, even though it was quite possible for a Usenet post to go "viral" (resulting in months-long threads with many hundred replies, sometimes cross-posted elsewhere on the internet). > Would you feel comfortable that you still have your job and your reputation after going in front of the nation and saying "I think interracial marriages should be illegal"? Funny choice there, since that used to be conventional wisdom well into the 1960s and later, at least in some places. You'd get in trouble for saying the opposite!

raxxorrax 6y ago

I think the number of people that tweet these specific things is vastly exaggerated, a mob tries to attach these opinions to certain groups to have an excuse to hate them, completely neglecting the reality that there isn't a group that justifies a prosecution complex that dictates that certain people should be removed from the public sphere by association. This is why we have this article. That TV is loosing its audience is no accident and tangentially related.