[ceejayoz]

In some cases, yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplinary_actions_for_comme...

> Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that any non-citizens who celebrated Kirk's death would be immediately deported…

> Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated on Katie Miller's podcast and in subsequent Department of Justice announcements that she intended to "target" speech against Kirk following his death as hate speech…

Plus teachers in public schools and universities.

[southernplaces7]

Since the very clear, repeatedly court-upheld, very specific wording of the 1st amendment protects free speech for anyone at all residing inside the United States (Yes, even including illegal immigrants, not to mention residents and visitors, though by voicing a politically disliked opinion they might risk becoming fast-track targets for deportation through other "formal" justifications) and also offers no legal classification for what exactly "hate speech" is, both of these lying, corrupt, inept, would-be parrots of Tinpot Trump are at least legally wrong.

It's amusing on the one hand, considering the hatred their very boss and most of the MAGA types poured on cancel culture and its notions of speech that shouldn't be allowed as hate speech, only to now reveal one more show of whining, gross hypocrisy.

On the other hand it's also deeply worrisome, to see key enforcers of federal U.S. law being so completely mendacious and cavalier about the actual legal part of their jobs in that very same territory.

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

Cancel culture won. Conservatives are not being hypocritical for having been against it and now for it. If your opponent is using an effective weapon and you don't also pick up that weapon, you will lose.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

Yep. Imagine I punch you. You say: "Don't punch me". I punch you again. Then you punch me back. I say: "Aren't you being hypocritical? I thought you were against punching."

The path forward at this point is for the left to admit they made a mistake, apologize, and work to negotiate a new set of ground rules.

[ceejayoz]

Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies#Tinky_Winky_contro...

Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_comments_on_Georg...

Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries

Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._national_anthem_kneeling_...

Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O%27Connor_on_Satu...

But sure, the left invented it.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

It's not about who "invented" it. It's about who started the most recent round.

We had a big discussion about cancel culture just a few years ago, where the left responded to complaints about it by saying: "cancel culture doesn't exist", "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", "free speech isn't hate speech", "you're just saying that because you're a racist/sexist/etc."

In other words: "Our ideology justifies large-scale, systematic application of public shaming for mild noncompliance with our ideology. We aren't going to stop doing this."

A lot of prominent left-wingers simply lack the moral authority to complain. What goes around comes around.

If you, specifically, were complaining about left-wing cancel culture, I'll grant you have the moral authority to complain about right-wing cancel culture as well.

[ceejayoz]

> It's not about who "invented" it. It's about who started the most recent round.

Starting when? Several of the examples are quite recent; there's no point in my life where people of both political persuasions weren't boycotting or criticizing things.

> freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences

This remains entirely true. The First Amendment protects us from government-applied consequences. Being fired for being an asshole by a private employer has always been kosher. Being fired because the FCC threatens your employer with revocation of their broadcast licenses over protected speech has not.

[southernplaces7]

As I said in another reply above,

where's the room for a firm set of beliefs and moral framework, or perhaps a principled stand against or for something by this dogshit logic of yours?

The only important thing is to get them votes and followers then? The conservatives can fuck off just as hard as the radical left if that's all that matters.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

>moral framework

Tit-for-tat is a moral framework.

[southernplaces7]

So is Nazism, that doesn't mean all moral frameworks are created equal. Also, tit for tat is a type of cynical pragmatism, not a thing based on some principle (misguided or not) which is a basic requirement of a moral framework; the notion of doing something or not doing it because you feel it to be right, regardless of benefit.

[southernplaces7]

well so much for a principled stand against or for something by this dogshit logic. I guess the only important thing is to cheer on whatever gets the votes, never mind how badly all things deteriorate as a result?

I'm no fan of democrat progressive culture, but if the crap you describe is what passes for a bottom line in the conservative camp, then it's garbage either way.

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

I’m not a libertarian

[southernplaces7]

What does being a libertarian have to do with it? Do you take as for granted that unless you're a libertarian, you shouldn't bother with at least a few firm moral principles in your politics? That anything goes so long as it garners votes and social media "engagement"?

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

Winning is the only moral principle. On the scale of human history nothing else matters.

[theossuary]

Republicans started cancel culture. It really gained steam in 2001 when they cancelled the Dixie Chicks for being anti-war (turns out they were right). So I guess you're right, the left adopted it after realizing they'd lose if they didn't use such an effective weapon against fascists.