2. At 12:42 of the stream Ben from Meidastouch claims I said they got Neil Young and others to boycott spotify.
I never said that.
They're trying to make me look like a conspiracy theorist by attributing claims to me I never made
3/ At no point did I say they had anything to do with Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, or any other famous artist.
3. At the 30:00They claim they had nothing to do with the @patriottakes video of Joe Rogan Saying the N-word.
This is a dodge, but I'll need to explain exactly how...
4/ @MeidasTouch did not create the video, that's not the point. In my thread I said that they "had a hand in it." What I mean there is the hand Meidastouch had in that video by spreading, amplifying, and boosting the signal of that video. It wasn't just retweets. I'll show you...
5/ This is the twitter feed of Ben Meiselas (@meiselasb) of Meidastouch.
His whole feed is just tweet and RT's of Joe Rogan clips that make Rogan look bad. Ben has 162k followers. He is not just RTing for agreement...he is reaching for "saturation."
What's "Saturation" you ask?
6/ Saturation is when you make sure a message (usually an ad, but it can be any messaging) has been repeated enough times in enough places that everybody hears it.
Running an ad once won't work not enough people see it. So, you need to run it many times.
That's what Ben did...
7/ He is tweeting and RTing ugly Rogan clips over and over and over because he knows people are on twitter at different times (and the algorithm can be unpredictable) and he wants to achieve saturation and make sure everyone who might see his tweets will see an ugly Rogan clip...
8/ Thebfeeds of Jordy and Brett, and also the @MeidasTouch account are filled with tweets and RT's of ugly Rogan clips.
All 3 of meidastouch owners have more than 140k followers and the meidas touch account has more than 700k
Thats more than a Million people.
Get the point?
9/ The Meidastouch crew did not create the video, but they worked with @patriottakes to amplify and boost the signal of the video so it would get traction and go viral.
They were manufacturing virality, and they knew precisely what they were doing because they are professionals.
10/ 4. At 33:08 Ben says Meidastouch never called for Rogan to be terminated.
This is nonsense.
What they did is amplify a tweet from @patriottakes that demanded Spotify terminate Joe Rogan. and they followed that tweet up with a fundraising plea for @patriottakes...
11/ So yes, they were calling for Rogan to be fired.
And just to be clear, an RT may not be an endorsement, but if you QT a demand for Rogan to be fired and in that QT congratulate the people making the demand, and then fund-raise off that work...then yes that is an endorsement.
12/ 5. At 35:30 Ben from Meidastouch says I claimed he was part of a cabal.
I never claimed this.
6. At 37:30 Jordy from Meidastouch said @stoolpresidente "can't have a conversation with Wokal like you're having with us."
The current heat on Joe Rogan is a result of a well organized social media campaign carried out by professionals and the resulting outrage is about as organic as a gummy bear, and we need to stop pretending otherwise.
/fin.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Any leftist podcaster or celebrity can hold an event at any University in the United States with minimal security and be completely safe.
Conservative speakers can't hold events on campus without armed guards and a bullet proof vest.
Let's talk about why🧵
Universities have basically said there is no penalty for *trying* to do violence against conservatives; there's only a penalty if you actually manage to injure one of them.
You can try to do violence as much as you like, and there's no penalty until you actually hurt somone.
It's like telling a man with a loaded gun "shoot as many bullets at people as you like — we won't stop you until you actually hit someone."
This is the logic universities use when responding to the threats, protests, and riots the left uses to intimidate and shut down speakers.
1. There is no such legal category as "hate speech" 2. You don't defeat ideas by banning them 3. Adopting a leftist frame ("hate speech" is leftist framing) is always a losing proposition.
The entire literature on hate speech was created by leftists, and is embedded with leftist assumptions. There is no way to appropriate that body of work without rehabilitating and legitimizing leftist arguments against free speech and in favor of censorship.
The reason the trans-movement is so nihilistic, violent, and unhinged is because it is postmodern, and the postmodern intellectual solvent it uses to dissolve the distinction between male and female also dissolves the distinction between good and evil.
The postmodern ideology of the transgender activists believes all values of any kind (moral, social, scientific, and epistemic) are just social constructs that have been constructed in alignment with the interests of the dominant ideology or ruling class.
so...
On this view the legitimacy of a given set of values is not a matter of fact, it depends on the interests of the people evaluating those values. As such the values of a society are a determined by which group has the power to embed it's interests in the social value structure...
People who celebrate the murder of their political opponents are not participating in the marketplace of ideas, they are encouraging deadly political violence by building a permission structure to legitimize and justify the murder of those they disagree with.
My freedom of speech means I get to clearly and succintly explain to the whole world that if you call for the assassination of your rivals this is not free speech, it is a direct incitement to political violence.
John Stewart Mill gave a famous example where he said that if someone claims corn dealers are starvering the poor this can be allowed if circulated through the press, but is not allowed when shouted in front of an excited mob assembled outside the house of a corn dealer....
1/ The Radical Left has used political violence to advance their cause for decades. What's new is the progressive left's professional class building a permission structure to justify the use of political violence
It's called Assassination Culture, and we need to talk about it
🧵
2/ To understand what's happening, you need to understand that the line between progressive-left professional class and radical left has been blurred. The extremist radical left and the socially progressive "bluesky left" are increasingly intertwined both socially and politically
3/ This is because many of the extremist radical from the 60's and 70' who advocated for, and participated in, the use of political violence have been welcomed into the mainstream institutions that are run by the progressive left professional class.
Look at the number of pro-athletes posting condolences about Charlie Kirk, and you'll see what a huge cultural figure he was.
He wasn't just famous in conservative circles, his clips debating college students were a loadbearing pillar of online political pop-culture
His willingness to calmly and politely debate all comers on any issue (at the very moment when cancel culture was strongest and people were afraid to say what they think) made him a sort of lovable internet folkhero.
He was an indelible piece of the online landscape.
Charlie was not quarantined to the "conservative ghetto" of online content; he broke contain and became a mainstream cultural figure.
Charlie became the cultural symbol of free debate, free speech, and settling differences in public with words