Of course the right has its name-calling blocs, too. But it tends not to march in lockstep to the extent that the left does. One of the many differences between left and right is that the right has far more people who champion the individual, and the left is far more collectivist, not just in policies but in thinking and expression.

I’ve looked at politics from both sides now (apologies to Joni Mitchell), and that is my firm conclusion.

In addition, the left dominates the MSM, and whether most people rate the press highly or not, the MSM still shapes the views of an enormous number of people and is highly influential.

I find it interesting that the pattern of leftist attacks on the right shows the same methodology as traditional anti-Mormon invective. Perhaps the latter has gone out of vogue because its erstwhile Christian-conservative-consumers are now dealing with the same kinds of accusations, but leveled at Christians and conservatives in general.

“Jesse Sands on June 19, 2019 at 9:46 am said:
Two points. First, there’s a lot of irony in screeds against “the left and the MSM” for lumping conservatives together. Uh huh, they’re a monolith engaging in some well-coordinated nefarious plot, but conservatives are all unique voices that should be judged on individual merit. Second, name-calling and hyperbole in place of sober, reasoned argument always is part of the deal for every person everywhere. See, e.g. McConnell equating Puerto Rico statehood with “full-bore socialism”, or some leftist lumping Ben Shapiro’s brand of stupid in with Richard Spencer’s brand of stupid. It’s done by everyone both because it’s shorthand for tribalist “you suck” and because it’s harder to defend against — you’ve chosen the battleground. There’s nothing uniquely leftist about it.”

What is uniquely leftist is the demand that they receive from conservatives and libertarians that which conservatives and libertarians neither want nor need from them; i.e., the sharing of costs for their moral dysfunction, their emotional incontinence, and their life incompetence. It’s what the leftist conceives of as sharing the unfairness of life. “The unfairness of life” meaning, they being what they are, and having to live with it.

To their mind it is the agency of the state which is to be used to effect this transfer of life energies and product. Why the state? Because as we all know the citizen cannot as easily distance himself from the state as he could from the average Hollywood lunatic ( Who prove by their wretched psychological lives that big money doesn’t really help the liberal-kind lead a dignified or worthwhile personal life.) Hence, the modern liberal’s continuous wails for inclusion; their demands for involuntary association, and an institution of an obnoxious system of non-exchange: value expropriated from the competent and free, for which the competent and free receive nothing of value in return; their life capital spent on the leftist only in order to be saddled with the costs of yet more leftist life-dysfunction.

Living with modern liberals, or progressives, is tantamount to living in a political extortion racket. They never get better, they never go away permanently, they are always demanding attention, and they always come back for more.

I tell them that people here are not at the stage to understand the more advanced spiritual concepts. I was told to link this anyways so…. whatever happens, it’s not on me!

You can ask Aesop about that. He had the prototypical “circle the wagons” response to something he perceived as a criticism or hostile or anti Mormon (before that went out of vogue).

He had to be reminded and counseled not to think with his natural man ego self.

It’s not about whether it is accurate or not. I know you think that matters but it is not a concern of mine. You are just projecting your ego’s views of what is “right” unto me. As a Son of God, you have to put some brakes on that projection power of yours, as some of us don’t really look at things in a human way any more. Not that they cannot, but that it is like looking at Leftist bullsh or social media justice for too long. It rots the spirit.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has sought to make a name for himself as one of the Republican Party’s sharpest tech critics, is introducing legislation that would chip away at the legal shield preventing online companies from being held liable for content posted by their users.

Hawley on Wednesday will introduce a bill requiring companies to prove they are politically “neutral” before they receive protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which largely gives internet platforms legal immunity over content posted on their sites by third parties.

The Missouri Republican’s legislation comes after Republican lawmakers for more than a year have threatened to gut Section 230 over allegations that the top social media companies in the world are biased against conservatives, a claim that the tech companies have categorically denied and say has not been substantiated by any evidence.

[depends on what the meaning of the word “evidence” is]

The Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act would require “big tech companies” to submit to external audits conducted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prove their algorithms and content moderation practices are not biased against either U.S. political party. It would require the companies to undergo audits every two years.
…
Hawley pointed to a “growing list of evidence” that tech companies are “making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with.” He said the process is “shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public.”

Hawley, along with Republicans including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and most notably President Trump, have pointed to individual anecdotes of conservative posts or accounts being removed to substantiate their claims that right-wing perspectives are routinely discriminated against online.

The tech industry and libertarian groups are already mobilizing against Hawley’s bill, defending Section 230 of the CDA as the provision that has empowered the Internet and slamming Hawley’s legislation as enabling government censorship of speech.

Sooo…internet gatekeepers, after growing like weeds because of their platform protection, are now cutting conservatives out of the picture, but it’s the goverment that will censor speech?

…
The Internet Association, Silicon Valley’s top tech trade group, in its own statement said Section 230 “is the law that allows online companies to moderate and remove content that no reasonable person wants online – including content that could have a ‘political viewpoint.'”

…no True Scotsman…

“This bill forces platforms to make an impossible choice: either host reprehensible, but First Amendment protected speech, or lose legal protections that allow them to moderate illegal content like human trafficking and violent extremism,” IA President and CEO Michael Beckerman said in a statement. “That shouldn’t be a tradeoff.”
…

It isn’t; it’s a strawman argument.

Hawley’s bill is not likely to become law, but it marks the first significant piece of legislation out of the Senate addressing allegations of political bias against conservatives by tech companies.