I now think ‘right wing’ is simply shorthand for ‘free speech advocates’.
And if people are so against people being able to say things that others find abhorrent, what does that say about those people?
It is remarkable how those declaring people shouldn’t be able to say things that others don’t want to hear, are often those who label others as hateful and a slew of other judgemental labels with alacrity. It is clearly hypocritical, but they never see it. They accuse others, yet are so often totaliterian and authoritarian themselves.
And it is also remarkable how this then plays out when religion is added. Because some people, and some posters particularly, who consider themselves as wonderfully tolerant, cannot tolerate religious belief. Because they consider it to be abhorrent, yet expect society to comply with their own philosophical belief. It is a fascinating cycle to observe.
Just like a legal centre set up by a Christian group to process cases that their church members want representation on, is then judged to wholly support the things people come to them to get representation on. Using this fucked up rhetoric, does this mean that every legal service then becomes a supporter of murder, rape etc? Or…. Perhaps a legal service provides legal services to people they do and do not agree with but who pay them to represent them.
That description on Wikipedia came from a Pink News article, with many typos to show the level of professionalism that media agency aspires to. And was posted by a poster who shows constantly just how little they value critical thinking and evaluation of content, who obviously think that pink news is a balanced font of information.
I don’t agree with some of the people they have represented, do I think that they should be rejected from getting legal representation? No. I also can see that at least one or two of those people won their cases because they had been subject to illegal actions and no matter whether you agree with their opinions or not, they don’t deserve to be subject to discriminatory behaviour in their job roles. One man simply was poorly treated for pointing out where they thought someone’s free speech was impeded.
As usual though, some people can only see that it is a ‘Christian’ group who supports ‘free speech’ and freedom of belief. They never see the intolerance in their zealous pursuit of totalitarian ideal- where everyone roughly complies with what is considered righteous. Same old same old.