‘Liberals’ showing their true intolerant nature
HAS there ever been a takeover that’s caused more furore than Elon Musk’s bid for Twitter?
For anyone who might have been living under a rock, billionaire Musk has reached a $44bn deal to buy the social network with more than 200 million users, and not everyone is taking kindly to it.
While many, predominantly conservatives, have celebrated the purchase and what it means for free speech, those on the left have denounced this acquisition, ostensibly as they are in favour of diversity of opinion.
Exiting the social media platform en masse, their hysterical cries have mainly been that relaxing content restrictions to allow a healthier plurality of voices will somehow, faulty logic notwithstanding, cause a surge in hate speech.
And there we have it, ladies and gentleman. The Woke Brigade at their best (or worst?).
But before we get to that, can we talk about Julian Knight?
It transpires that the MP has invited Elon Musk to Parliament so that he can be “quizzed” on his planned purchase of Twitter.
Since when have business acquisitions been required to go before career politicians, seemingly with the cross-examinee clutching his business plan and being prepared to justify his intentions to all and sundry?
Is every business transaction now to be subject to a legislative grilling? Is capitalism dead and no-one has told me?
But back to where we were. We have learned over the past few days that Musk will take over as the chief executive of Twitter after he completes the acquisition, personally overseeing his commitment to lighter content moderation.
To say that this will encourage hate crime, as many critics insist, is simply a thinly veiled attempt at justifying censorship in a civilised society.
The ironically self-proclaimed liberals are showing their intolerance and closed-mindedness – the exact antithesis of what they are supposed to stand for – when it comes to opposing and different views.
This is toxic and dangerous on two levels. Not only does it put freedom of expression under threat, a fundamental human right that underpins our democratic society.
But it risks ramping up what is already a very real situation where normal, everyday people are afraid to say what they really think for fear of being lynched by the Woke Army.
We’re already self-censoring, already worried to share valid, benign opinions for fear of being construed as racist or homophobic or as some other equally repugnant hater.
Do we really want to live in a world where people are too scared to speak their mind, a basic liberty, for fear of sanction or retaliation?
Of course we can’t talk about freedom of speech without mentioning cancel culture.
A major source of outcry is that Musk’s commitment to freedom of speech may mean an open-door policy for Donald Trump to return to the platform following his previous suspension.
Is that really such a bad thing? Why shouldn’t he be allowed a voice?
We all have it in us to be reasonable and rational human beings and can surely understand that we can give someone space to express their views without having to agree with them.
That is exactly what freedom of speech is about, but sadly it seems that a lot would rather live within the ignorance of an echo chamber.
Cancel culture is just another example of how the plurality of voices is under deeply concerning threat; the shaming and suppression of individual thinking is enabling the altogether less interesting and less stimulating “group-think” dressed up as liberalism.
There are laws in place to put sensible limits on absolute freedom of speech, deterring and punishing those who incite hate crime for instance.
We need to trust that while most people are kind and decent-minded and not this way inclined, they will be appropriately dealt with if they do deviate towards hate, rendering the extremes of censorship beforehand unnecessary.
What it boils down to is quite simple – things are going too far.
The reaction to Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover is a stark reminder of this.
We’re on the verge of living in a world where minority groups cannot be called out for perceived wrongdoing without there being the ipso facto assumption that there is intended discrimination behind the statement.
Whatever side you fell on, Piers Morgan and Meghan Markle is a case in point.
This is not “woke” as Marx intended it, in the sense of standing up for social injustice against oppression and exploitation.
This is a whole new brand of “wokeism” which is silencing, intolerant of differing views and a fundamental threat to our human right to have an opinion.