• slazer2au@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Ah yes free speech absolutist. Everyone should be able to say whatever I agree with.

  • stinerman [Ohio]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    7 months ago

    “Free speech absolutist” these days means “you should be required to hear what I say” not “you should be able to say anything you want without government interference.”

  • gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    7 months ago

    read as “as someone that wants to do whatever they want without any consequences”

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      Read as “As someone that wants to do whatever I want without any consequences…everyone else must do whatever I say or else.”

  • NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I keep waiting for Conor Friedersdorf (her peer at the Atlantic) to cover leftist speech on campus. He spent the teens wallpapering about poor conservatives on campus who are just so oppressed.

    I love the Atlantic but it certainly has its shortcomings and blind spots. It’s treatment of the war in Gaza has been one such shortcoming.

  • madejackson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Well, technically speaking, she is just using her right for free speech… Not in a very smart way though.

    • Jaderick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I feel like the modifier absolutist implies unwavering support for free speech for all, but no one I’ve met personally who champions free speech apropos of nothing is known for their critical thinking skills.

  • Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    What’s going on here, this person’s replying to themself on Twitter?

    I’m not really well up on how Twitter works these days. They’re… angry at themselves for asking the police to arrest someone? Or that the police haven’t arrested them even though there’s (I assume) clear evidence of the crime they committed? And that has something to do with free speech?

    All in all a very confusing screenshot xD I’m going to make a cup of tea and sit down…

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      User “Caitlin Flanagan” is calling for the arrest of people at a pro-Palestine demonstration because she does not like what they are saying.

      User “JordanUhl” replied to her post with a screenshot of another post in which Caitlin proclaims to be a “free speech absolutist”.

      It showcases the hypocrisy many right wingers which used to call for literal neo-Nazis such as Milo Yiannopoulos to be allowed on campuses under the guise of “free speech”. Now that free speech is used for something they do not like they quickly want it banned.

    • Commiunism@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      I don’t use twitter but I’m 99.9% sure it’s some unrelated person (jordan) linking two tweets of another person (Caitlin) in the same message to point out their hypocrisy.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The person posting took a screenshot of a tweet from this “journalist” and posted it as a reply on another of their tweets begging for the storm troopers to take away the people whose politics she doesn’t like in order to point out her hypocrisy.