← Back to context

Comment by zahlman

7 hours ago

He did more than imply the falsehood. He implied that people had no good reason to disbelieve the falsehood, and that the right wing was seeking to deceive on this basis for political gain. In doing so, he (perhaps inadvertently) ran cover for the ideology that was actually responsible.

Right-wingers have lost their jobs in the US many times for far less, even when their comments were on social media accounts unrelated to the job. When these responses are described as unjust or disproportionate, American left-wingers have consistently and repeatedly (across a span of many years) told me the same line about how 1A only applies to government and not corporations. Which is correct, but also entirely missing the point about bias.

> Right-wingers have lost their jobs in the US many times for far less, even when their comments were on social media accounts unrelated to the job.

You make it sound like losing one’s job for being an embarrassment to their company is a bad thing.