3 ms·

And that makes it ok how, exactly?

monocasa 5y ago
Because the problem with McCarthyism was the government infringing on freedom of association. On the other hand, the kind of cancelling that gets talked about today is simply people independently exercising their freedom of association, and it's being made into a boogie man to take those choices away from people. I don't have a problem with conservatives doing it either as long as they don't enforce it on others, and don't do it for the protected classes. Everything else is fair game for both sides.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  Ask Liz Cheney how that goes. What happened to her is making an example. Tow the MAGA line or else.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    As much as I disagree with their decisions, the Republicans get to decide Republican leadership. Just like people get to say "we decided not to associate with you".
    - Spooky23 5y ago
      I think you missed my point. It’s not about party governance. The more reactionary elements are, to put it politely, bullies. Stefanik went to school a few blocks away from me and her evolution/devolution has been well publicized even before she hit the national spotlight. It makes her the perfect patsy. She has been “rewarded” for loyalty, but has to double down on whatever. The problem is you have to do what the bullies want or you’re in the cold. The issue for the public at large is you have a coalition of reactionaries, losers (the Colorado bartender with a gun fetish turned Representative) and compromised people whose only path forward is double down on extremism. There’s a non-zero probability that someone like Rep. Greene will accuse POTUS of being a alien lizard-person. It’s exactly the same as McCarthy.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        It's not the same as McCarthy because they aren't nuking someone's access to anything other than Republican party leadership. McCarthy could take away random citizen's livelihood; Greene is just playing politics in a gross way with other politicians.

Because the problem with McCarthyism was the government infringing on freedom of association. On the other hand, the kind of cancelling that gets talked about today is simply people independently exercising their freedom of association, and it's being made into a boogie man to take those choices away from people. I don't have a problem with conservatives doing it either as long as they don't enforce it on others, and don't do it for the protected classes. Everything else is fair game for both sides.

Spooky23 5y ago
Ask Liz Cheney how that goes. What happened to her is making an example. Tow the MAGA line or else.
- monocasa 5y ago
  As much as I disagree with their decisions, the Republicans get to decide Republican leadership. Just like people get to say "we decided not to associate with you".
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    I think you missed my point. It’s not about party governance. The more reactionary elements are, to put it politely, bullies. Stefanik went to school a few blocks away from me and her evolution/devolution has been well publicized even before she hit the national spotlight. It makes her the perfect patsy. She has been “rewarded” for loyalty, but has to double down on whatever. The problem is you have to do what the bullies want or you’re in the cold. The issue for the public at large is you have a coalition of reactionaries, losers (the Colorado bartender with a gun fetish turned Representative) and compromised people whose only path forward is double down on extremism. There’s a non-zero probability that someone like Rep. Greene will accuse POTUS of being a alien lizard-person. It’s exactly the same as McCarthy.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      It's not the same as McCarthy because they aren't nuking someone's access to anything other than Republican party leadership. McCarthy could take away random citizen's livelihood; Greene is just playing politics in a gross way with other politicians.