To help me take this argument seriously, could you give a specific examples of when the shoe was on the first foot?

> a few years ago when people were being sentenced to prison for memes

are you talking about the guy whose memes tricked thousands of people (of one political party) into thinking they could vote by texting a number?

▲

Amezarak 14 hours ago | parent [-]

You may want to read the Appeals Court ruling that overturned his conviction 3-0 because the government lied.

But also consider the point that everyone has a reason why their exact situation is different than the other sides when the outcome is the same. They would say for example that Kimmel was simply deplatformed because he also spread misinformation.

There’s no way out until everyone agrees it is the outcome that matters rather than doubling down because their ideology is so correct that it is beyond contestation and the other side are enemies destroying democracy rather than rivals.

▲

thfuran 14 hours ago | parent [-]

>They would say for example that Kimmel was simply deplatformed because he also spread misinformation.

Okay, but they would be either misinformed or lying.

▲

ezekiel68 13 hours ago | parent [-]

They would not. I love Kimmel, but it turns out the story of the gunman is now much more layered and nuanced than "the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them..." In Kimmel's defense, this was a developing story at the time, but it is not untrue, in hindsignt, that Kimmel spread misinformation.

	▲	metamet 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Nothing Kimmel said in the quote you provided is untrue. His statement is about their actions in response to the event, not anything to do with the actual sentiment of the shooter.