4 ms·
>> Dissent is only to be tolerated when it's politically convenient. Come on, man. > It’s a bit worrying that total lies about a conspiracy between Dominion an
by ardy42 6y ago
>> Dissent is only to be tolerated when it's politically convenient. Come on, man.
> It’s a bit worrying that total lies about a conspiracy between Dominion and (very much dead) Hugo Chavez to rig an election for Joe Biden is what gets classified as “dissent” these days.
I'm not sure if you can really even call this a "classification." It's more of a false equivalency, either made in bad faith or through some sloppy bit of emotional reasoning.
I'm seeing a lot of this kind of thing now (another similar example is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25898393 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25898393). It's like some people are experiencing certain generalized feelings, then applying charged words to what triggered those feelings without understanding either the words they used or the thing they're commenting on.
- ashtonkem 6y ago> I'm not sure if you can really even call this a "classification." Probably not, I'm mostly responding snarkily to how deeply conspiracy theories have embedded themselves into the body politic. More important is the idea that a well formed[0] defamation lawsuit is something that requires public attention and redress. Attempting to call this defamation lawsuit something that is suppressing dissent smacks of a hamfisted attempt to make this lawsuit into something bigger than it actually is. Giuliani and his ideological cohort made a bunch of defamatory statements about a company, and predictably that company is suing for defamation. There's nothing terribly surprising or concerning about that. 0 - Defamation lawsuits can be used to suppress speech, of course. This is exactly why many states now have anti-SLAPP laws on the books. That however does not seem to be an issue in this case, as this lawsuit is at least well formed.