The current thing is that Elon Musk bought Twitter so Republicans can have "free speech."
Twitter has gone all-in on censorship. Nobody can really deny that. It's also pretty obvious that it's a power-trip thing. The argument could be made that censorship isn't necessarily ideological, as much as it is just a combination of hunger for power and disdain for opinions that Twitter hates.
It's easy to see why Leftists hate "free speech." Leftists hate everything that is a by-product of white supremacy. And the essence of white supremacy is the concept of human rights, like "free speech."
The entire purpose of "free speech" is to allow people to say things that some people don't like. In other word, "free speech" is pointless without "hate speech."
But, as Leftists like to do (and are really good at), they claim concepts and redefine them. So they say things like "free speech doesn't protect hate speech," which is obviously stupid. Or they make insinuations that if white people say bad things on the internet, that black people are too emotionally fragile to deal with it.
Leftists are a different kind of white supremacist than Rightists. Leftists want to coddle black people, like overbearing mothers. Rightists just don't want to be forced to be around black people, and disagree that "diversity is a strength."
If you think about it, it's really a weird thing that a country founded on individual liberty has this obsession with forcing white people to live around black people. I think the same can be said alternatively on behalf of blacks. They probably wonder, "Why do these white folks want us to live in they neighborhoods so bad? What's wrong with black neighborhoods?"
Censorship is something else that Leftists have backwards. Shouldn't the people who are too emotionally fragile to deal with bad words on the internet be the one's censored? Instead of making the entire internet cater to a few emotionally fragile people who can't handle the idea of white people saying things they don't like on Twitter, maybe it should be them that's banned from social media. Because the majority of people don't become emotionally triggered when they read things they don't like on the internet. Maybe they don't like it. Maybe they block the person. But life goes on.
People who think there should be a monopoly on public opinion are the ones who can't handle alterative opinions. They need to understand that it's OK for people to think differently. No matter how much it hurts their feelings. And if they can't deal with that, they need to be put in time-out.
Furthermore, what exactly is the block button for anyway? Isn't that so you can't read stuff that triggers you?
If white people want to say bad words on the internet, so what? Some people might be into that kinda thing. Nonetheless, they are people too, and should have the same virtual rights as everyone else. That's what the block and follow buttons are for.
If the block button doesn't solve the problem, then censorship should be the next option. Because then it's not reading bad words, it's the thought that people are thinking bad words that you can't handle. And that's a problem. So, banning the accounts of people like that would only be for their own good (unlike Leftist censorship which is based on power and hate).
The ones who are calling for censorship are the ones who need to be censored. This is more than obvious when you think about it. That doesn't mean they are bad people, they just aren't ready for the real world yet. They need more time to mature before they wander out into the vastness of the digital world. It can get crazy, with all those differing ideas and bad words.
The entire censorship debacle could be solved by censoring those who aren't emotionally mature enough to be on the internet. Then ideas could be exchanged freely on the internet, and those who are offended by bad words wouldn't have to get their feelings hurt.
No comments:
Post a Comment