3 ms·

You're right, and that's were the double standards come in. Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case) Also

You're right, and that's were the double standards come in. Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case) Also progressives: Freedom of speech has its limits Pick a lane.

foldr 2y ago
Elon described himself as a free speech absolutist. There is no inconsistency in pointing out that his actions don’t align with this description, regardless of whether or not the person doing so is themselves a free speech absolutist.
- scarab92 2y ago
  Shifting the goal posts. The attacks on Musk are almost always that he doesn’t support freedom of speech, without any qualification. If you’re trying to attack the much narrower position that he’s not a free speech absolutist you need to do it at the time your make the criticism, not retrospectively after you make the allegation.
  - foldr 2y ago
    I don't think so. Twitter before Musk had all kinds of TOS that obviously blocked speech that would be protected by the First Amendment. No-one is saying that Twitter used to be a free speech absolutist free-for-all before Musk took over. They're saying two things. First, that his actions don't match his stated intentions. Second, that he is heavily biased towards unblocking far right accounts.
zimpenfish 2y ago
> Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case) No, it's "Elon claims to be a free speech absolutist yet somehow keeps denying freedom of speech to people who disagree with him". The hypocrisy is the problem.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
engeljohnb 2y ago
Here is my lane: Elon is a hypocrite. He bought twitter in the name of "free speech," then removes any speech he doesn't like. His actions are inconsistent, and this one of many demonstrations that he doesn't care at all about liberty. That matters because he's now apparently in charge of every federal government agency.
- scarab92 2y ago
  Musk is a hypocrite, but so too are progressives on the topic of freedom of speech. It's the pot calling the kettle black.
  - advael 2y ago
    Wait so you're saying that anyone who criticizes Musk is in this bucket of "progressive" and therefore is accountable for the supposed hypocrisy of all "progressives"? Actually this argument makes no sense. I know that it's commonly repeated in propaganda, but that doesn't mean it isn't stupid on its face. You can't just throw people into a collective arbitrarily and then hold them responsible for everyone else you'd call that's actions
    - scarab92 2y ago
      Hypocrites deflect when their hypocrisy is called out.
      - advael 2y ago
        Sure, but also hypocrisy only makes sense when applied to a single person or an actual organization that actually collectively takes positions. "Progressives" is an amorphous category that can seemingly include anyone we want to declare "woke" at any given time, and seems to span the political spectrum from even the most right-leaning democrat politicians to random tankie teenagers on social media. Such an incoherent group doesn't have collective positions or collective responsibility for each other's positions, and I think it's important to point this out because it's a very common rhetorical gambit

foldr 2y ago

Elon described himself as a free speech absolutist. There is no inconsistency in pointing out that his actions don’t align with this description, regardless of whether or not the person doing so is themselves a free speech absolutist.

scarab92 2y ago
Shifting the goal posts. The attacks on Musk are almost always that he doesn’t support freedom of speech, without any qualification. If you’re trying to attack the much narrower position that he’s not a free speech absolutist you need to do it at the time your make the criticism, not retrospectively after you make the allegation.
- foldr 2y ago
  I don't think so. Twitter before Musk had all kinds of TOS that obviously blocked speech that would be protected by the First Amendment. No-one is saying that Twitter used to be a free speech absolutist free-for-all before Musk took over. They're saying two things. First, that his actions don't match his stated intentions. Second, that he is heavily biased towards unblocking far right accounts.

zimpenfish 2y ago

> Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case) No, it's "Elon claims to be a free speech absolutist yet somehow keeps denying freedom of speech to people who disagree with him". The hypocrisy is the problem.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

engeljohnb 2y ago

Here is my lane: Elon is a hypocrite. He bought twitter in the name of "free speech," then removes any speech he doesn't like. His actions are inconsistent, and this one of many demonstrations that he doesn't care at all about liberty. That matters because he's now apparently in charge of every federal government agency.

scarab92 2y ago
Musk is a hypocrite, but so too are progressives on the topic of freedom of speech. It's the pot calling the kettle black.
- advael 2y ago
  Wait so you're saying that anyone who criticizes Musk is in this bucket of "progressive" and therefore is accountable for the supposed hypocrisy of all "progressives"? Actually this argument makes no sense. I know that it's commonly repeated in propaganda, but that doesn't mean it isn't stupid on its face. You can't just throw people into a collective arbitrarily and then hold them responsible for everyone else you'd call that's actions
  - scarab92 2y ago
    Hypocrites deflect when their hypocrisy is called out.
    - advael 2y ago
      Sure, but also hypocrisy only makes sense when applied to a single person or an actual organization that actually collectively takes positions. "Progressives" is an amorphous category that can seemingly include anyone we want to declare "woke" at any given time, and seems to span the political spectrum from even the most right-leaning democrat politicians to random tankie teenagers on social media. Such an incoherent group doesn't have collective positions or collective responsibility for each other's positions, and I think it's important to point this out because it's a very common rhetorical gambit