"Will you even notice when your train has arrived at the Gulag?"? What does that even mean?

I didn't think that was particularly abstruse, but sure, I thought your reply was missing the forest for the trees and you seemed oblivious or blasé at the rather obvious slippery slope ahead, if you can even call it that by now.

You acknowledged it was bad (sorta, kinda), but the rest is IMO completely irrelevant. "Galactic-scale complaints" or not (we don't know), the head of the FCC appearing on Benny Johnson's podcast threatening to pull their broadcast licence (he probably could not) is unprecedented. And one can wonder how many of the aforementioned complaints his comments incited.

Now they'll lose subscribers anyway.

▲

tptacek 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I just want to understand the writing. What's the supposed scenario where my "train" pulls up at the "gulag" and what is it I'm supposed to be noticing or not? Did you make this up or is this an idiom somewhere? I couldn't find it on Google.

▲

moogly 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Gulag, the forced labor camps of the Soviet Union? It's a metaphor (I hope) of the plunge into authoritarianism and you seeming to downplay it, and if you're not paying attention now, you might find yourself there and wondering how the hell you got there.

▲

tptacek 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Wouldn't I notice when they put me on the train in the first place?

▲

baobun 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I guess moogly is baffled that as you apparently haven't noticed that this is where we are heading already - will you?

(Obviously it won't be a literal train given the state of our rail infrastructure but more likely a van in practice :p)

▲

danans 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Wouldn't I notice when they put me on the train in the first place?

Welcome aboard. We left the station a few months ago.

	▲	tptacek 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		In this metaphor we're all going to the gulag together? Then does it matter if I notice it or not?

▲

sethammons 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Dude, c'mon. You are smart enough to know it is a play on Martin Niemoller's "First They Came For...". If you don't think it apt, just say so.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—Martin Niemöller

▲

orbanization 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think it is a reference to your very noticeable habit of downplaying, "yes, but"-ting, "well, actually"-ing and generally minimizing the country's rapid descent into fascism. There are numerous examples of this, but even in just this thread, you draw a false analogy between Maher's cancellation (months after his remarks, following an advertiser boycott) and Kimmel's (immediately following a direct order from a government official).