🧔🏻I’m intellectual dark web.
🙂What’s that?
🧔🏻 It means I believe unequivocally in free speech, even if offensive.
😕 like ... what?
🧔🏻Race science, Nazis, nationalism, that stuff.
🤨Also those who tell the truth about systemic racism, right?
🧔🏻Them I try to get fired.
😧It’s just...race science, fascism, authoritarianism...those are REALLY dangerous.
🧔🏻 We in intellectual dark web believe all speech must be protected in free society. You cannot squelch ANY speech.
🤨 But...you suppress critical race theory.
🧔🏻Yes, it really squelches fascism.
😧You really seem to want to overlook the real cost marginalized people pay when you platform hate speech.
🧔🏻 Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Defeat hateful ideas by presenting better arguments
🤨So...your “intellectual dark web” argues against hateful ideas?
🧔🏻hahahahaha no
😧 you “intellectual dark web” people claim exposing hate speech will lead people to reject it, but history teaches a far different lesson.
🧔🏻yes that’s why we oppose teaching it in schools
🙂hate speech?
🧔🏻no, history
😧I just don’t see how you in good conscience can promulgate Nazi speech.
🧔🏻”I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll give my life for your right to say it.”
🙂So you defend my right to speak?
🧔🏻Ooh I mostly just defend Nazis?
😯Doesn’t seem like you disagree.
🧔🏻I did say “may”
🧔🏻We in intellectual dark web oppose “cancel culture.”
🙂What’s that?
🧔🏻 Silencing speech
😕 Sounds bad
🧔🏻 White men are no longer allowed to speak
😟Whoa. The government arrests you? Prosecutes?
🧔🏻No
🤨 What then?
🧔🏻There’s public criticism
🤨Seems cowardly
🧔🏻You’re canceling me
🧔🏻Why won't you debate my IDEAS?
😯Because they're bad ideas.
🧔🏻Ideas should be allowed to succeed or fail in open debate.
😀They are. We heard your ideas. We think they're bad. Your bad idea failed.
🧔🏻Well I meant my ideas should be allowed to succeed.
🧔🏻we must have free speech
🙂 well on that we agr—
🧔🏻we can’t let “woke” mobs cancel people
😧how do they do that?
🧔🏻 by shouting people down
🤨... so, speech, then?
🧔🏻
😶
🧔🏻 yes, but BAD speech
😕 ah
😯But society must have some license to impose standards of discourse
🧔🏻No. That’s “cancel culture.”
🤨You intend to control people’s responses to what others say?
🧔🏻 No. But people are innocent until proven guilty
😧 You want to bring people to trial?
🧔🏻Stop changing the subject
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"You bishes better not talk about anybody else's death again EVER," warned Jesus, "and I'm coming back in 3 days for a minute to be sure you aren't!" Then he died. The curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook and the ground split.
"Peter," said Jesus.
"Here I am Lord," said Peter.
Then Jesus said to him again: "Peter."
"Yes Lord," Peter replied.
A third time Jesus said: "Peter."
"Lord, it's me," said Peter.
"You guys aren't talking about anyone else's death, are you?"
"No no, Lord," Peter said, quickly.
"What Trump voters think" should be reported, but it shouldn't matter.
Their beliefs and opinions should be covered like those of the members of any suicide cult. We should be told what the beliefs are. They shouldn't be lent credence or framed as valid drivers of policy.
The New York Times is making me tap pretty hard on the sign this weekend.
And: it's no longer necessary to report on what Trump voters think. We KNOW what they think. We know we know we know we know, we never stop getting told what these people think.
When exactly do we insist they engage with what everybody else thinks?
The other thing that makes Republicans bad is that increasingly they don't *win* elections, they just damage the mechanism of election until the election no longer reflects the will of the people ... which is the quality of elections that makes the permission they bestow valid.
When Democrats are in power, increasingly it means an *overwhelming* victory, so much that it overcomes the anti-democracy mechanisms Republicans have put into place.
When Republicans achieve power, increasingly they do so despite, not because of, the will of the people.
Don’t scale it back to placate. Double it to show them you mean business and ram it the fuck through, and then send through another one that’s THREE times bigger to teach them not to fuck with you. People want a real solution, nobody cares that Lisa Murkowski didn’t vote for it.
Name the bill the “Republicans are insurrectionist traitors act” and then make unblinking eye contact with them as you vote for it.
To be clear: a rapist of young girls is a selling point for mainstream Republicanism this point. That’s not hyperbole. That’s simply a clearly observable pattern. It’s an Abuse Party.
White conservative Christians have weaponized the concept of “forgiveness” to mean “a transactional status restoration between unrepentant abusers on one hand, and on the other unharmed third parties who have without consent appointed themselves proxies for victims.”