SJW Reign of Terror, by Will Chamberlain.
This phenomena may seem novel; a journalist is, on the one hand, calling for the assault and battery of conservatives, and on the other, demanding that a conservative commentator be unpersoned for being mean to him.
In societies throughout history, the following dynamic is common.
Aristocrats may be rude to other aristocrats.
Aristocrats may be rude to peasants.
But peasants may not be rude to aristocrats.
Under our system, de facto, [SJW blogger] Carlos Maza is perfectly within his rights to demand that conservatives have milkshakes thrown at them. [Conservative blogger] Steven Crowder, conversely, cannot insult Carlos Maza. Thus, Maza has more power — and privilege — than Crowder. …
Maza is a member of an aristocratic class. It’s perfectly legitimate for him to call for assaulting “far-right” peasants. Crowder is, in this analogy, a “peasant.” He cannot insult Maza; that offends the established order.
Every aristocracy has a source of power; otherwise, they could not maintain their class privileges. Previously, progressive journalists’ power was rooted in the ability to extract a humiliating public apology (hat tip to Matt Taibbi). But with the mainstream media losing credibility among conservatives, they had to change their approach. Now, their source of power is their ability to bully corporations into de-platforming unapologetic conservative influencers. …
Why do the big techs do it?
In 2019, our blue-checked aristocrats are trying to wield their power to keep the new “untouchables” off of social media platforms.
All of these platforms are headquartered in Silicon Valley, a deeply progressive area. All of the executives live in the area. Most are liberal. If their companies defy the blue-checks, they won’t go bankrupt. But they will have to deal with an immense amount of negative PR. They’ll have to deal with internal discontent within their organizations, which are staffed top to bottom with progressives. They’ll have to deal with the opprobrium of their friends, who will wonder why they haven’t banned that nasty Youtube star who insulted the friendly Vox journalist.
As a result, these monopolistic companies pay attention when the progressive journalists complain. Peasant complaints, on the other hand? Easily ignored. …
A possible solution would be a rights law:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 solved the boycott problem in the Jim Crow South. Once it was implemented, if a racist white person went to a hotel and yelled at a hotel manager for accommodating black customers, the hotel manager could simply point to the civil rights laws and tell the customer to get lost. After all — there was nothing the hotels could do. They had to serve black people.
These businesses were liberated by their constraints. Because they were prohibited from discriminating, they could serve everyone, and increase their bottom line. It was the racist customers who truly “lost” under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not the common carriers.
If we make platform access a civil right, Carlos Maza and his fellow aristocrats can whine and bleat all they want about how a conservative has been mean to them. None of it will matter. Companies won’t indulge them, because indulging them would be against the law. This is more than a way to protect conservative speech; it’s a way to free social media platforms from aristocratic influence.
Last night I saw the ABC trot out the argument that since tech companies are private they are free to discriminate as they please. The ABC had no one to mention the obvious rejoinder that upends this hypocritical nonsense: Is it ok for private restaurants to refuse to serve people because of their beliefs or their skin color? Is it ok for Christian bakers not to bake cakes celebrating gay marriage? Both recent leftist campaigns. How about a bit of consistency?