The moral bankruptcy of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act

israel protest

Recently in America, a bipartisan group of senators and congressman signed a bill called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which, if signed into law, would make it a crime to support a boycott against Israel. More shockingly, the proposed punishment for violating this law includes a minimum fine of $250,000 and a maximum fine of $1 million, and you could be thrown in jail for a maximum of 20 years. The AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) acts as if it’s a necessary part of what they see as a fight against the “delegitimisation of Israel”, and indeed, this was a top priority for the lobbying organisation this year.

My own views on Israel notwithstanding, this is simply an extremely abhorrent piece of legislation that I’m shocked anyone supports. The people who support it seem to have no idea of the ramifications this bill might have, namely regarding free speech. They seem to have forgotten that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly forbids any laws abridging freedom of speech. Of course their politicians, so I almost except them to skirt the constitution, but not so brazenly as they will do if this law passes.

Note that this bill was supported by both Democrats and Republicans. You have prominent conservative senators like Ted Cruz, Ben Sasse and Marco Rubio supporting it (thereby throwing Ted Cruz’s commitment to the constitution in question), along with left-wing senators such as Kirsten Gillibrand, Adam Schiff and Maria Cantwell. That should basically tell you that they’re all career politicians who want money wherever they can get it, and apparently the Israel Lobby is an indispensable source of income to them, so they have to appease them however they can.

Before you misconstrue me for some anti-Israel leftist, consider this. I actually oppose Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, because it’s an obvious attempt to delegitimise the state of Israel through hard-left moralising, and is one-sidedly in favour of the Palestinian side of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I’m about as supportive of Israel as I can get, but as a matter of principle, I am diametrically opposed to any law that threatens freedom of speech in any country, especially the West. We are facing enough threats to freedom of speech from potential totalitarians in our own governments (and in opposition). The last thing we want is more.

What’s really sad is that this can go on because there is no real opposition. Bipartisanship notwithstanding, this is the kind of bill I would have expected from a die-hard Republican back in the late 2000’s. In fact, I bet it’s mainly the chickenhawk neo-cons who want this, but the so-called liberals aren’t doing anything, and that’s because the left has lost its mind. Instead of focusing on serious issues like this, they’re focusing on non-issues like the wage gap, Islamophobia and the so-called “Trump-Russia collusion”, none of which are even real things, let alone things that Americans care about. The “liberal left” has spent so much of its energies on fantasy issues that it lost track of the real ones, and now its left to the functionally retarded ACLU to try and stop this. Yes, the very same ACLU that came out in defence of Islamist SJW Linda Sarsour.

In my opinion, this is the true moral bankruptcy of the bill. It’s an opportunistic piece of authoritarian legislation being trotted out by a bunch of unscrupulous political sellouts who know that they can slip it past the radar while the mainstream left is busy drumming up that phoney Russian collusion scandal. It’s exactly like how the British Parliament managed to pass the Investigatory Powers Bill while the opposition was in chaos and the left was too busy trying to undo Brexit.

Why fire anyone? Screw the FCC!

I’ve always hated Federal Communications Commission, not just as an institution but the mere idea of it. How is it that the US constitution enshrines your right to say whatever you want, but somehow that right is not extended to TV? As someone who values free expression the FCC appals me, and it should appal all supporters of free speech whether you’re left-wing or right-wing. So it bothered me when the whole #FireColbert fracas showed up. Apparently the failing agitprop artist Stephen Colbert made a lame quip about Donald Trump’s mouth being fit only for being “Putin’s cock holster”, which is about the edgiest thing he’s said in years.

With #FireColbert, I think it was both the left and the right willing to piggyback on this, and I wouldn’t feel the need to bring it up at all were it not for the emergence of a second FCC-related hashtag campaign, this time targeting someone who I cannot believe I am forced to defend here. This week, John Oliver did a segment where he again campaigns for net neutrality (which is actually one of the few things I agree with him on), in light of the Trump administration’s plans to roll back Obama-era net neutrality laws.

He launched a campaign called “Go FCC Yourself”, in which he urged viewers to send complaints to FCC chairman Ajit Pai, in the hope that he might reconsider his plans axe regulations put in place under the Obama administration. However, the campaign seems to have been marked by DDOS attacks against the FCC, which appear to have happened soon after the campaign. FCC executive Matthew Berry also took to Twitter to denounce the many racist messages and death threats that people have submitted seemingly through Oliver’s campaign.

Many people have lashed out against John Oliver on Twitter, including Rebel Media reporter Jack Posobiec, who accuses John Oliver of deliberately inciting “racist fans” to attack the FCC, as if the FCC did nothing wrong. Oh but it gets better. Now Posobiec wants you to think John Oliver is some sort of “racist hatemonger”. What the hell is he thinking? He’s literally playing the race card in the same way the SJW’s always done, and his followers are eating it up. In fact, various other right-wingers, in their zeal to get him fired, are now starting to sound exactly like the authoritarian leftists they despise. It’s not just on Twitter. On Milo Yiannopoulos’ post sharing an article I found, several commenters seem more interested in the fact that John Oliver is a leftist, than the dilemma posed by the FCC getting involved. They don’t care because John Oliver is a political opponent of theirs.

They don’t seem to be getting that this is the exact same problem, but because the FCC is targeting leftist comedians for “obscenity”, somehow it’s okay. I can guarantee however that if the FCC-compliant Steven Crowder did the exact same kind of campaign that John Oliver did, and people sent racist messages through it, he would likely come under fire from the authorities too, but everyone on the right would defend him. In fact, I suspect that most of these right-wingers don’t care about the FCC now that Donald Trump is the president, but if Hillary Clinton had gotten elected, then they would be the first to oppose the very existence of the FCC.

I really dislike having to defend John Oliver, but this time, he is actually innocent, or at least I think he had good intentions with his campaign, but he grossly underestimated what could happen with online campaigns. The problem here is that the campaign was a golden opportunity for people who wanted to screw with him. Think about it. The campaign was filled with bot accounts, and was apparently a conduit for DDOS attackers. This tells me that his campaign might have been intercepted by malevolent individuals who probably hate John Oliver to the point that they wanted to make him look bad, so they hijack his online campaign by sending DDOS attacks to the FCC, and flooding the comment section with racist bot comments in order to make it look like John Oliver was leading an army of racists, hackers and trolls against the FCC. That’s my theory at least.

Of course, nobody seems to be interested in the more important question – why does the FCC even exist? All it does is impose stifling regulations on TV and radio, and thanks to them, American cable television is so heavily regulated that nearly all of it is boring, offensively bland, and so formulaic that it it’s incapable of edgy, boundary-pushing content. Just about all the TV imported to Britain is forced to comply with these regulations, so for me, it’s no different to watching heavily regulated British television.

I think a lot of the controversy, particularly with regards to Stephen Colbert, could be resolved if President Trump did the noble thing, and simply axed the FCC. If he did that, not only would he save money by eliminating a pointless regulatory body, but he would also attract more supporters, especially from libertarians such as myself. Again, I don’t like defending people like John Oliver. I’ve gone on record denouncing him as a liar, and I consider him to be a hypocrite (which I’ll talk about in a later post), but I also believe that it’s wrong to try and get him fired because of something that offended you, which is what the left has been doing for the past few years. With Trump in power, am I going to have to sit here and watch the right turn into the left? I should hope not, but as the Trump years drag on, I worry that this may be an inevitable reality.

The return of the moral busybodies

stop funding hate

It appears that in today’s world, the home of persistent, self-appointed moral guardians is in the left, and this is evident in a divisive new campaign called “Stop Funding Hate”. What is it? It’s a campaign that aims to pressure major companies into withdrawing ads from right-wing tabloids such as The Sun, The Daily Mail, and The Daily Express. In other words, it’s a thinly disguised attempt at censoring newspapers they disagree with. They made news this month when they released a John Lewis style mock advert calling on them to stop funding right-wing papers. Sadly they’ve already gotten one company to cave in, as Lego announced that they will stop advertising in The Daily Mail. The Co-op Group (for those who don’t know, they’re a British supermarket chain) has also announced that they are “reviewing their policies”, and Waitrose and M&S are also being urged by the group.

I don’t know if anyone else has noticed, but this campaign sounds exactly like the self-appointed moral crusaders of the 1980’s, and it’s sickening. It seems as if today’s progressives are obsessed with silencing opposing opinions, and to be fair, that’s all the left can do nowadays. They’re losing elections, their propaganda is being rejected, and their ideas are being proven wrong in the face of reality. Incidentally, the main targets of this campaign – The Sun, The Daily Express, and The Daily Mail – are all right-wing, populist and most importantly Eurosceptic publications, and all of them backed Brexit. Taking that into account, it’s no surprise that they’re targeting those publications in particular.

Even more baffling is the fact that somebody is actually giving these moral busy-bodies what they want. My question to Lego is this – are you insane? The first rule of handling social justice warriors is that you shouldn’t give them what they want. If you do, then they know that they will have power over you, and they can demand more from you, and they will because they are never happy. This is why you never apologise to a social justice warrior, it shows them that you are weak, and that’s exactly what Lego has done in this situation. At least John Lewis, the company being targeted by the group’s latest ad, has shown some sense, having stated that they “never make an editorial judgement on a particular newspaper”.

I had a quick look at their Facebook page, and according to their about page, they claim to stand for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of choice, impartiality, inclusiveness, consistency and universality, and at this point, I know they’re full of shit. They are not in favour of free speech or freedom of the press, or freedom of choice for that matter. They cannot be if the point of their campaign is to stop companies from advertising on newspapers they disapprove of. That is not the goal of a group that values freedom of speech. It is in fact censorship, and it’s wrong when anybody calls for it, no matter how noble you think your goal may be.

Their claim to stand for impartiality is also bullshit, mainly because they’re deliberately targeting newspapers that supported Brexit, and oppose mass immigration. As for inclusiveness, I’m definitely sure that’s what an SJW would stand for, but I’m pretty sure that they’re the kind of people who would ostracise you if you expressed any opinions that differed from theirs (for example, feminism). The only two principles I can say they do hold sincerely are consistency and universality, given that they are consistent in their petulant, self-righteous moralism.

Given that the focus of their campaign is coverage involving immigration, Stop Funding Hate exemplifies the reason why nationalism is coming back into vogue here in Europe, because the left refuses to allow an honest discussion on immigration to take place, preferring instead to talk down to the common man, labelling anyone who opposes immigration at all as a “racist”, “xenophobe” or an “Islamophobe” (more common than ever due to the Syrian migrant crisis). To me, this campaign is yet another symptom of just how terribly simplified political discussion has become. We live in a time where the left has turned any discussion on immigration or almost anything else political into a matter of “love versus hate”, which is complete nonsense. It reminds me of San Angeles in the movie Demolition Man (which is a classic I would recommend to everyone reading this), in which the rules of society are geared toward engineering a world where people aren’t assholes.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t necessarily like the sensationalist rhetoric of these right-wing newspapers, and I’ve always criticised them because of it, but that doesn’t make it right to pressure companies into withdrawing ads from those papers. To me, that fundamentally contradicts the right to a free press, goes against a company’s right to freedom of association, and could very much set a dangerous precedent. In the future, maybe a Christian pressure group could force a company to pull their ads from a paper that constantly criticises their religion. If that happened, we would basically have a scenario where the censorship that the left demands so much is used on them.

The fall of YouTube

youtube fail

YouTube has long been considered a platform where you can express any idea you wanted, but lately this is changing, as YouTube is rolling out a new policy which gives them the power to demonetize for violating vague new guidelines on what isn’t “advertiser friendly”. For those who aren’t aware, monetizing videos allows YouTubers to collect ad revenue from their videos, and by demonitizing videos that violate the new guidelines, they are effectively punishing YouTubers with controverisal opinions (more on that in a bit). These new rules are starting to affect some of YouTube’s biggest names, including Phillip DeFranco and MrRepzion, both of whom are famous for calling out SJW’s on their nonsense.

The new monetization guidelines, which are geared towards sanitising the kind of content that YouTubers can monetize, display an extremely backwards definition of what could be considered “inappropriate for advertising”, and it generally seems as if YouTube has gotten about as paranoid as the next Mary Whitehouse, but the last bulletin point is the big problem here, as Phillip DeFranco highlighted in a post on his Twitter profile.

youtube guidelines

Yes, YouTube’s new monetization guidelines are deliberately targeting the company’s ideological enemies, and if you think this isn’t a big deal, then consider this. There are people out there who make a living putting out content on YouTube, and some of them dedicate their career to providing an alternative to the mainstream media narrative, giving airtime to ideas and perspectives that would not be given a chance on the mainstream media. By targeting the means by which they can keep themselves financially afloat, YouTube is attempting to silence their right to free speech by disincentivizing the creation of content which expresses controversial opinions. Call it whatever you like, but it is tantamount to the heinous crime of censorship.

Responding to the inevitable outcry from users, YouTube defended its stance by insisting that such a policy has already been in place for three years, but has merely “improved” them. At this point, their definition of “improved” must be completely different to the normal one, because I wouldn’t call tightening the restrictions an improvement. All this will do is drive content creators out of YouTube, and onto smaller sites.

The most common argument in defence of YouTube’s new rules is the tired old line “they’re a private company, they can do what they want”. That’s fine and dandy, but I don’t remember any of the leftists saying that about Chick-fil-A when its COO criticised gay marriage (I didn’t agree with him, but he has his rights as do the rest of us). Leftists only defend private companies when it suits them. In this case, YouTube is discouraging people from spreading ideas that leftists don’t like, and the mainstream media isn’t complaining. Whatever your views on private companies are, the whole “private companies can do what they want” argument is only true up to a certain point, and even if you sincerely believe in the rights of private companies, you can’t say that if you’re also against the right of a Christian bakery to not make gay wedding cakes.

Of course, all of this misses the bigger picture – YouTube is circling the drain. It used to be a pretty open platform where you could say whatever you wanted, but then they became popular, and entrenched in popular culture. Ever since they were owned by Google the site has been going downhill, until now we’re at the point where they now censor anything critical of Hillary Clinton, and strike down anything that offends enough ultra-sensitive SJW’s. What will inevitably happen is that YouTube’s latest changes will force its best and brightest users out, until all political and cultural discussion on YouTube, or at least the bulk of it, is dominated by delusional, virtue-seeking ideologues with the mental capacity of 15-year-olds.

If its any consolation, I’m sure that there’s some kind of silver lining. There are ways of getting around YouTube’s censorship policies (I’ve heard that not putting tags on your videos helps), which is some hope because YouTube has censored before, and people have found ways around it. More importantly, I think it is only a matter of time before YouTube’s censorship policy gets used on the SJW’s, which brings me to one final point. The people who campaign for censorship always assume two things: they assume that they get to decide who are what is censored, and they assume that the policy of censorship that they advocate won’t be used on them.

What’s going on in YouTube is important because it signals just how little free speech is being valued in today’s society, and we will all pay the price if we don’t speak up for those who are being discouraged from speaking their mind, because unless we are all free, none of us are. I’d like to conclude by paraphrasing a very famous speech by Martin Niemöller. First they came for the Christians, and I did not speak out because I wasn’t a Christian. Then they came for the Republicans, and I did not speak out because I wasn’t a Republican. Then they came for the nationalists, and I did not speak out because I wasn’t a nationalist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

A bad time to be a libertarian on Facebook

cuckerberg

It seems that free speech on Facebook is circling the drain with each day. I’ve written before about how Facebook has been caught censoring conservative news outlets from the trending section, but now I’ve been hearing about how they’re removing conservative and libertarian pages from Facebook. Recently, the Facebook pages Being Libertarian and Occupy Democrats Logic, both of which were critical of the progressive ideology that Facebook marinates in, were shut down by Facebook simply for posting memes.

How bad were they you might ask? Not at all. They were basically innocuous, satirical memes. Being Libertarian got struck down for a meme that said “hating white people makes me non-racist”, which was a jab at the racial politics of the regressive left. Occupy Democrats Logic, a page that debunks content from the notorious left-wing propaganda page Occupy Democrats, was targeted for a meme that pointed out liberal hypocrisy on homophobia, highlighting how, despite the fact that both Christianity and Islam proscribe homosexuality, progressives denounce Christians as bigots, but don’t give Islam the same treatment.

Of course, the progressives over in Facebook don’t like satire (unless it mocks conservatives or is very tame), and they certainly don’t like they’re ideology being questioned, so they removed the posts under the false pretence of “violating community standards”, and before long the group page was removed. The same happened with Being Libertarian, as well as Liberty Memes, a page that shared the “silly Americans, laws are for poor people meme”, which was critical of Hillary Clinton. It’s not just libertarians who are being targeted. When news of Facebook censoring conservative news outlets from its trending feed broke out, Facebook began to censor conservatives who spoke out on Facebook. According to Lauren Southern, a conservative libertarian journalist from Rebel Media, Facebook had apparently banned all the moderator accounts running the conservative Disdain for Plebs page merely for arguing in defence of Donald Trump. When another Disdain for Plebs moderator called Facebook out for censoring conservatives he was banned too, as was Lauren Southern when she called Facebook out for it.

One thing is becoming clear – much like Twitter, Facebook is becoming increasingly intolerant of conservatives, libertarians, and anyone who thinks outside the progressive line of thinking that Mark Zuckerberg is clearly entrenched in. Indeed, we free-thinkers may be living in dark times, what with the social justice takeover of academia and Obama’s plan to relinquish US control of the Internet to an international body. Am I to believe that freedom of speech has become completely dispensable to the establishment? That’s basically what’s happening, and the controlled media is silent on this because they’re essentially on the same side as Facebook. With social media CEO’s like Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey so trigger happy about censoring ideas and speech that counters their views, I can’t help but be concerned about the future of political discussion on social media. After all, if conservative and libertarian pages get censored so easily, how long will it be before people who post dissenting opinions on their timeline get censored?

All the more galling is Facebook’s hypocrisy on the matter of what constitutes offensive speech. They will ban people for defending Donald Trump, and pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals, and yet they allow Occupy Democrats to spread blatant lies, Black Lives Matter gets to spread their hateful propaganda on the site, and the far-left Class War group, which was responsible for arranging a violent riot in Shoreditch last year and are actually considering partying on the grave of the deceased Duke of Westminster, gets to spread all manner of hateful propaganda, including stuff that might actually qualify as “hate speech”, and they’re able to get away with it.

To me, it’s becoming more and more obvious that Facebook has a left-wing bias. I’ve known this for the past three months, and this concerns me because of how much I believe in free speech. I believe that everyone is entitled to have a platform, no matter how uncomfortable or repulsive their views may seem to us. If even one person is silenced, then the rights of all of us are endangered, because of one person is silenced, who will be next? How long will it be before everyone else on Facebook becomes too afraid to speak their own mind? If that happens, Facebook will end suffering the fate that Twitter is know – it will become an echo chamber for progressives and the far-left, and anyone who disagrees with the progressive ideology of its CEO will be censored or banned. That is the future I see for Facebook if this continues, and I can only look on in worry.

Twitter’s death warrant

twitter

I’ve already covered the ban placed on Milo Yiannopoulos on Twitter in a previous post, but I think I should talk about the decline of Twitter, and the ramifications that I think will come with Twitter’s half-brained decision. Think of this as “part two” of the discussion if you will.

Firstly, like I’d like to clarify my position on Milo and the abuse towards Leslie Jones in case anyone’s in doubt. From what I could gather, Milo didn’t start the riot. In fact, his tweet aimed at Leslie was posted after Leslie became the target of trolls, not before. Contrary to what the media will tell you, Milo didn’t incite anything. All he did was provoke Leslie, like the provocateur we all know him to be. The only reason Milo got blamed for this is because (a) he wrote a scathing review of her movie, (b) he’s an easy target for people like Leslie, and (c) Twitter has already suspended him a few times, and has been aching for the chance to get rid of Milo’s account for good.

Of course, two key things bothered me. First, after Milo got banned, the mainstream media celebrated, like some savage barbarian tribe revelling in the blood of a slaughtered enemy. Without even hesitating, they took Leslie’s side because it’s painfully obvious that they despise Milo. The Guardian despises him, The Verge despises him, Esquire and Polygon despise him, and I’m very sure none of them did any of the research. Secondly, Twitter executives, when asked by Breitbart journalists, refused to say whether or not they believe in the traditional value of free speech. I’m not entirely surprised, but it should be very alarming because it essentially confirms that they have contempt for the idea that their critics should be allowed their right to free speech.

To be honest, I think they didn’t know what to say. If they were honest and they said they didn’t believe in free speech, all but the worst kinds of SJW’s and other assorted extremists would leave Twitter. If they said they believed in free speech, they would still be utter hypocrites. They’re willing to allow the most rabid Black Lives Matter supporters to call for the murder of police officers and go literally unpunished, but Milo Yiannopoulos gets struck down over a spat with a celebrity? What about the number of ISIS supporters who took to Twitter to celebrate the Nice attacks? Is Jack Dorsey going to be on the case with them? I highly doubt it. What about the hashtag that translated into “we demand the killing of atheists” that was trending on Arabic Twitter? What about the number of social justice warriors who bully people who disagree with them? It’s clear that Twitter is favour of allowing anyone other than conservatives and libertarians to speak freely on their platform.

For me, this is a sign of what some suspect has been happening for quite a while – Twitter is dying. Over the past year, Twitter’s stock market value has been going into sharp decline. Exactly a year ago, Twitter shares would have worth around $36 a share, and by now the shares only worth about half as much. In February, after Twitter saw a sharp decrease in users, the company’s share prices plummeted. Granted, they have been recovering, but I doubt that it will get much higher than $20 per share. This is just the economic side of things, but it essentially indicates the decreasing value of Twitter as a brand.

More importantly, the amount of new users coming to Twitter is stagnating. Currently the site has roughly 310 million active users, but it is apparently having trouble attracting new users, since the arrival of new users has slowed down. Twitter’s management isn’t quite the same as it used to be. In the months after Jack Dorsey became CEO last year, a number of Twitter’s staff and top executives left the company, and in February, Twitter announced a new “Trust and Safety Council”, with the neofeminist propaganda network Feminist Frequency as one of its inaugural members. Coupled with shadowbanning and Dorsey’s obvious progressive biases, it’s no wonder why a lot of people have left Twitter, and are worried about whether or not they’ll get banned too.

Banning Milo perhaps wasn’t an immediate problem, I think Twitter may as well have used it to distract Twitter users from the sites many problems. I like many other people are worried about Twitter going in an increasingly authoritarian direction. All banning Milo did was force that authoritarian streak into the spotlight, sparking a new revolt from Twitter users who are interested in free speech. By banning Milo and thereby pandering to the easily offended, Twitter may very well have signed its death warrant.

When I say this, I mean that Twitter may have exposed its true disdain for free speech, and thus a disdain for its users. If Twitter is that willing to censor those critical of Jack Dorsey’s progressive ideology, then we may yet see more users exiting Twitter in fear that their powers of censorship may be used on them. At any rate, I will continue keeping abreast of Twitter’s situation, because it seems like every time people say that Twitter is dying, everything turns to be fine in the end, but I have no doubt that Twitter will only get worse from this point on. How long will it be before ordinary people find themselves censored when Twitter’s authoritarian attitude reaches its logical conclusion? Only time will tell.

Don’t ban @Nero (or, why we can’t have nice things)

milo

Oh boy.

Let’s face it, the new Ghostbusters film was an unmitigated disaster. The writing was bad, the characters and acting were terrible, the effects were pretty but ineffectual plastic, and the humour was almost nonexistent. In other words, it sucked. Of course I go into more detail than that in my review on Movies for Earthlings, but I wasn’t alone. Indeed, Breitbart’s very own Milo Yiannopoulos delivered a much more brilliantly scathing review, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Of course not everybody enjoyed it. Indeed, Milo eventually got into a spat with one of the main actors, Leslie Jones, who blamed Milo for the tide of bizarre comments and photos (which included pictures of her face with semen on it). Leslie then reported Milo to Twitter hoping that they lock his account, all while drawing ire from his fans. In fact, when a Milo supporter called her out for trying to censor him, she called him “a racist bitch”. Of course, Milo took it all in classic stride, but apparently the SJW’s wouldn’t let it slide, and so they try to silence him with the hashtag #BanNero, which was near-universally panned and mocked on Twitter. Most people on Twitter saw it for what it was – a bunch of whining SJW’s who hate Milo so much that they desperately want to censor him.

Were they all so desperately attached to the new Ghostbusters film that they were willing to silence critics? Apparently so, but this is only the latest attempt by wailing fanboys to try and dismiss critics of Paul Feig’s summer flop. Reviews from all across the establishment papers have come out singing praises of the new film, which I wouldn’t mind if they didn’t just dismiss us critics as “sexist trolls” (like The Guardian and The Telegraph did in their reviews). Paul Feig himself, the king of male feminist white knights, even went on to describe those who hated the idea of the new Ghostbusters as sexists. No surprises here. This is a man so entrenched in male feminist thinking that he once wrote a rambling article in which he espoused the bold claim that men aren’t funny.

The progressives, neofeminists and SJW’s are all obvious very desperate to defend the film from all forms of criticism, in spite of the fact that nobody wanted this film other than the jaded Hollywood establishment that is equally desperate to appeal to millennial social justice warriors, and I’ve heard that even they have managed to find fault with it (I’ve heard complaints from SJW’s that Leslie Jones’ character is a racist stereotype). In this case, Hollywood and the progressive elites have found themselves on a sinking ship. Most of the audience doesn’t even like or care about the new Ghostbusters film, and worse still, the film has so far made only $69 million against a $144 million budget. The film was a terrible investment, and I bet that Sony realises that. The film was basically a vanity project, and the fact that the film’s producers, actors, the SJW’s and Guardian writers are so fervent in trying to defend it speaks volumes about their character. These are the same people who write off popular dislike of the Ghostbusters trailer as a “campaign” to downvote it into oblivion.

If they know that the new Ghostbusters film was going to be largely unpopular, then surely they should have grasped by now that calling critics “sexist trolls” or “misogynists” isn’t working, and trying to censor a conservative journalist for criticising the film only mad them look worse. To be honest, I would have had higher expectations of the film itself if it weren’t for the regressive left’s campaign to smear anyone who didn’t like the Ghostbusters trailer back in March (granted, even after I took my mind off that, I still hated it). This is precisely why we can’t have nice things nowadays, and if anything else, this is the direct result of what happens when you retool a beloved comedy classic and market it toward a mob of brainless SJW’s. With results this bad, I highly doubt that there will ever be a Ghostbusters sequel. Just as well, I want the whole fiasco to be laid to rest as much as anyone does. Of course, that can only happen if the SJW’s on Twitter can stop whinging for at least five minutes.

But they can’t can they? Before the “Gays for Trump” party, Milo’s account was permanently suspended by Twitter, thus confirming that Twitter has become a safe space for progressives, neofeminists, SJW’s and BLM extremists, but a no-go zone for anyone who happens to disagree, especially if you’re a conservative like Milo. Of course, the hashtag #FreeNero has come up as a response, but this proves that free speech today is under threat. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, no one is free until we are all free. When the rights of one are endangered, then it threatens us all. When ideas are censored, tyranny is inevitable, and I worry that Twitter is on the path to becoming a far-left echo chamber where dissenting views are struck down.