There should be a snappy phrase for the tendency of all Anti-Anti-Trump Dark Web arguments about CENSORSHIP to devolve into claims that criticizing their stupid arguments is the worst form of censorship of all:
I would not be writing about the RAND-funded Saucer People and the Reverse Vampires if they weren’t engaged in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. https://t.co/i68trelcDm— Bon Ivermectin (@davenoon1970) July 25, 2021
To me, willful misinformation about medical treatments during a pandemic easily crosses the line, but the question of when powerful social media companies should remove content/posters is a genuinely difficult one about which reasonable people can disagree. But the idea that making the very obvious point that most Ivermectin shilling is just anti-vaxxism with a translucent foam of plausible deniability is “censorship” is just laughable, and underscores that above all these snowflakes just don’t want their bullshit exposed to any scrutiny. I mean, I guess someone needs to tell Bret Weinstein — Ivermectin Shill-in-Chief and Bari Weiss sad model for a public intellectual — to stop going on Tucker’s Anti-Vaxx White Power Hour and censoring himself:
An evolutionary biologist claimed Friday that, should the anti-malarial drug Ivermectin be proven effective against the coronavirus, it would moot the usage of and potentially the ability to administer the U.S. coronavirus vaccines currently active under the Food & Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization.
Bret Weinstein – who previously made headlines after being pressured out of his biology professorship at Evergreen State College in Washington State for criticizing an anti-White “day-of-absence” – told Fox Nation’s “Tucker Carlson Today” that he has been analyzing the vaccines, and has summarily been censored for raising concerns about the shots and the medical establishment’s opposition to alternative treatments.
Gee, I wonder what gave people the idea that promoting Ivermectin was about undermining confidence in the vaccine? Truly, a mystery that will never be explained.
To unite our threads, here’s the guy who will probably be hitting the college circuit with Taibbi next year asserting that accurately criticizing a reactionary in public should be illegal: