pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 8 replies \ @SimpleStacker 9h \ parent \ on: Rules for thee, not for me lol
The pernicious nature of this post is that it is trying to equate celebrating a murder with disagreeing with identity politics (because that is the context of Matt Walsh's posts.)
It is the same logic that led to the murder itself: equating the sin of disagreeing with someone's identity to the sin of physical violence.
The two are not equal and should not be treated equally.
He specifically says you should ALWAYS oppose someone getting fired over a controversial speech.
It couldn't be any more clear how he is contradicting himself.
Take away your feelings about the situation, it isn't about that. It is about firing someone over a tweet, which he clearly disagreed with ALWAYS (meaning, without exception), but now he would like people to be fired over a tweet.
This isn't that complicated ;)
reply
reply
You're changing the subject to remove focus from the point of this post. You want to make this about something else to avoid the difficult reality of his change in stance when it no longer is beneficial to him.
The post is about a man saying no one should ever get fired for sending out a controversial tweet. But that seemingly only applies to people on "his team" that send out controversial tweets. It does not apply to 'others' who send out controversial tweets that he dislikes.
reply
reply
My post is self explanatory. You have strong feelings about something tangentially related (but not at all the point of the post) and you ascribed some other meaning onto my post to set yourself up to dunk on that meaning (which was invented by you).
When I chose not to engage with you and explained the point of the post (assuming you innocently misinterpreted me), instead of saying oh ok my bad, you then say I'm axe grinding.
You never engaged in good faith. You just needed to spit your venom and thought you had an easy target for it.