Unpersoning the opposition

Over the past week or so, Twitter appears to be, well, all a-twitter about removing from its online conversation voices with whom certain parties disagree:

On Friday, Twitter suspended the account of Robert Stacy McCain, a conservative blogger and dogged critic of feminism, apparently without warning or explanation. This has led, in true Twitter fashion, to protests under the hashtag #FreeStacy.

Only a few weeks earlier, Twitter had announced the creation of a “Trust and Safety Council,” to which it appointed Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist known for denouncing “sexism” in video games, a prominent figure in the Gamergate controversy—and oh yes, a frequent target of criticism from McCain. So it sure looks like the moment Twitter gave Sarkeesian the power to do so, she started blackballing her critics.

Suffice to say this is not an isolated incident, but appears to be part of a pattern of ideological banishment by the social media platform.  That, in turn, is part of an increasing tendency by the big online players to segregate out viewpoints they find ‘objectionable’ — a totalitarian tendency that should not be tolerated by any free-thinking person, regardless of political persuasion.

The real irony, of course, is this: that Twitter and supporters of its ban hammer are quick to point out that this can’t be a First Amendment issue, because Twitter is a private company and as such can run its business (and deal with its customers) anyway it likes (apparently including running its share price and market value into the ground after alienating the conservative half of the country).  The government, they say, should not get involved.

Isn’t that cute?  I happen to agree the government shouldn’t force Twitter to provide its services to anyone.  But in case the point is lost, here’s the always-sharp Iowahawk to explain:


Leftists have amassed so much power and influence they no longer see a need even to try to appear coherent or consistent in their arguments.  But as their blatant hypocrisy and will to power become more obvious, the pendulum–and the power–will begin to swing the other way. Indeed, there are signs this has already begun.  They would do well to consider that the ‘rules’ they are trying to impose easily cut both ways.  As H.L. Mencken once said, “there comes a time when every normal man is tempted to hoist the black flag (no quarter), spit on his hands, and begin slitting throats.”

For many of us on the Right, that time is just about here.  If it’s OK to silence online voices, or campaign to destroy someone’s livelihood or reputation simply because they hold views that don’t comport with the Left’s worldview, well… sauce for goose, gander, etc.  Bring back the Scarlet Letter and public shame, then.  Ridicule and ostracize those who insist, against all reasonable observation, that men and women are completely interchangeable parts in society.  Refuse to associate with the addled minds that still think, after more than a century and hundreds of millions of dead, that Marx has anything useful to offer to society.

Put these people beyond the pale the way they are trying to exclude the true heirs of the West.  Leftism, as I’ve said several times recently, is parasitical.  It doesn’t create; it perverts.  It doesn’t preserve; it breaks down.  It doesn’t empower; it constrains within a carefully controlled collective.  Now that this is becoming more widely recognized, its adherents shouldn’t be surprised when they are, in turn, banned from participation in Western Civilization 2.0.  Most of these agitators of various stripes and fetishes haven’t truly been ‘oppressed’ in two or three generations.  They decry ‘intolerance’ (conveniently defined as disagreement with them) while actually practicing it (‘unpersoning’ and targeting for harm those they disagree with).  As a result of their vacuous goading and preening today, they may well find out what oppression really looks like, when the inevitable backlash to their nonsense begins.