zlacker

Were they "butt-hurt" or were they feigning outrage to point out the hypocrisy of their opponents? I feel the later happens a lot on the internet (and some people even loose sight of the original intent).

It's like "censorship is OK if a private company does it". This makes a bit of sense if you're attacking a Libertarian, but for left wingers to earnestly think that private companies should have the right to shut down discussion they don't like is very odd.

Sometimes I worry that large portions of online debate has been overrun by people making claims they don't really believe because they're a bad slippery slope take on the views of the people they disagree with; and sometimes people have even started to buy the deliberately bad arguments their side has created.

>>wisty+(OP)
They were probably posturing in both cases but the fact that their constituency went along with both is worth noticing.

>>wisty+(OP)
> Were they "butt-hurt" or were they feigning outrage to point out the hypocrisy of their opponents?

How should one tell the difference?

> think that private companies should have the right to shut down discussion they don't like

That's a perverse take on supporting 1st amendment rights. Do you believe that right-wingers in turn believe that private companies should be forced to serve users and content they don't want to?