• OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hate this little thought terminating cliche. It’s trying to make everything into hypocrisy which it isn’t. Say he banned everyone who ever said anything pro Israel…you can fairly apply that rule across all people, and have disparate impacts.

    The problem isn’t that he’s censoring others but not himself, it’s that the rule itself is bad on its face.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is hypocrisy. He called himself a “free speech absolutist” after he bought Twitter. He called it the “digital town square.” Ever since then, he’s banned anyone who says things he doesn’t like and keeps the Nazis. He’s absolutely a hypocrite and he should be called out on it.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago
      1. Man calls himself as a free speech absolutist

      2. Same man buys social media platform

      3. Same man then mass bans people and removes comments when he doesn’t like their political leaning or they criticise him/his companies too much

      How is that not hypocrisy?

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If that is what they said, it would be hypocrisy. The cliche is “X for thee and not for me” so the claimed hypocrisy is that he is censoring others and not himself for saying the same things. That isn’t the issue, as you point out the issue is that he is censoring when he said he wouldn’t.