isn’t there a difference between a president actively pursuing a firing of someone based on their free speech, vs a company deciding to do it for any reason other literal government coercion? if disney decides someone is fired because they think the court of public opinion is going to result in a negative financial impact, that’s pretty different from the president of the country calling for his firing even if there’s a percentage of the population who called for their firing.
pretty sick of the false equivalencies between the government applying influence, and private corporations deciding actions based on what they deem profitable. neither are based on morals, but the government is supposed to be the one curtailing this shit, not fanning the flames.
that said, i do think i agree with you partly, if i read this correctly, in that people should absolutely be ready to be punched in the face if they hold a contentious opinion. a lot of shitheads would be shutting the fuck up a lot more if nazis got punched more often instead of being praised. if being not-fascist becomes a contentious opinion, you can be sure as shit i’ll be ready to be punched in the face for standing up against racist fuckhead nazis
nah fuck your shitty take, you’re taking everything out of context in order to fit your narrative. nazis are bad, hence gina carrino got fired for publicly endorsing nazi-esque tweets.
you know what the real equivalence is? how about why the FUCK are we talking a shitty youtube grifter for longer than we talked about John Redcorn’s voice actor being murdered by some fuckwit republicans?
you’re a fucking fascist and i hope you choke on glass, and if you have family, that they’re not interacting with you regularly enough to be brainwashed by your “both sides” shithead “philosophies”