Edit: Guess who won't face any accountability.
I love reddit screenshots of a twitter post.
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2025
2026 points (99.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
9193 readers
2580 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I love the fact that twitter screenshots are still racially segregated on reddit
I still can't believe they wanted people to send pictures of their arms to prove they are a person of color before posting/commenting. Okay, maybe I can believe that. What I can't believe is that anyone defended it
load more comments
(3 replies)
It's not a screenshot, reddit changes their images so if you try the old right click save as they can tell you aren't in their app and add the frame around it for free advertising. If things get embedded then they are still getting their recognition. Not a bad idea for Lemmy tbh...
Voyager has an option to do just that. The Voyager watermark is also optional.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Fuck man. We are at peak stupid right now. Kirk was a piece of shit, the people leading the us are pieces of shit. Ceo's and leaders of racist/ fascist movements are getting shot in the streets.
The people are pissed, we are entering a tipping point
Tipping point USA?
CEOs: yes, but can I market this as increasing shareholder value somehow?
Yeah, because only one side cares about language and the words we use. The other side is a bunch of disengenous fuck bags with zero beliefs outside of economics
bunch of disengenous fuck bags with zero beliefs outside of economics
I feel "economice" is too wide of a phrase to be used with these cunts.
They don't believe in economics, they believe in self service, control, and grifting as much as they can.
It's not economics, it's taking advantage of the mentally disabled half of the population.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Conservative economics are not actually good economics. I hate that even liberals like to concede to the “economics” brand that conservatives talk about.
As someone who has actually taken whole assed courses on economics.... What economics?
Whether conservative or liberal, politicians don't make economic decisions, they make political decisions.
I have yet to see any politician who consistently made, or even publicly recognised, the better economic decision.
Economically, a well trained, and healthy population is a good thing. So providing relief for the costs of being healthy through something like a healthcare program, is in everyone's best interest. Ensuring that people can get the training they need to be the most efficient they can be, is in everyone's best interest. These things are good for the economy.
Conservatives make it seem like they're making choices that are good for the economy, and they certainly make statements that try to convince everyone that's the case, but bluntly, they make capitalistic decisions. Decisions that help capitalists. If they can rob, steal, kill, or maim someone to bump profits, they'll do it, and their friends in government will help them do it, and get protection for doing it.
They're not interested in the economy, they're interested in their pocketbook, and whatever make it fatter. Even if the cost is future economic downturn, they'll do it if it bumps profits this quarter.
.... Like firing an entire department to save on the wages of the people that they fired, when those people are still needed, and now you'll need to spend more money to hire replacements for almost all of them, but this quarters numbers will look amazing, and the CEO, and his buddies in the c-suite will get their bonuses, and the shareholders will get a few dollars more per share in dividends this quarter.
They wouldn't know good economics if they were surrounded by it. They can't see that far.
Oh I know. I took a few courses on economics in college too. It’s absolutely insane and seems so obvious to me that this should be seen as bad economic policy. It’s wild that a commonly held belief by a lot of people is that conservative politicians are good for the economy, they just lack social morality or some shit. Their economics are absolutely idiotic and horrible.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Selling off state assets and cutting taxes for the rich isn't really good economics. Its selling the future of your children to the future trillionaires.
load more comments
(1 replies)
That's basically the playbook.
The right cries free speech, but demands everyone else's free speech be removed.
Fear of retribution by the current president is why.
Donald Trump has taken cancel culture too far.
Both sides are held to their own standards – but only one side actually has standards.
If you have zero standards, as does the right, what is there to hold anyone to?
Worse, when you’ve swaddled yourself in fanatic Christianity, where the only one who can judge you is a god, and he’ll forgive all your sins if you accept some guy into your heart, and the way to do that is to say you have, you can do literally anything and be accepted.
The rest of us hold each other accountable. As we should.
Don’t pine for the blind acceptance of sociopaths – it’s infernal for all of us.
Sounds like a bunch of snowflakes enacting their cancel culture.
Слава Україні, Cлава Палестині.
I sure wouldn't say no if they got rid of Stephen Crowder, since he's the one in this meme.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Free speech is to allow the multi-billionaire companies to advertise their products to the masses. It isn't free speech so much as a right to advertise. It helps billionaire companies much more than anyone else.
The media is captured by the right.
That's a VERY, VERY bad sign for our nation and democracy in general, and, historically, that's an indication that things about about to get REAL dark.
We should start printing flyers expressing views like the views this guy was fired for and posting them up all over our cities. We can't rely on the media to be able to express truth anymore. And posting said views on here or other, more censored, social media isn't going to cut it anymore. Doesn't reach enough people, and not the right people. The people on the fence. The people on the middle. The people that will end up being captured by the right because they control the media.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Freedom of speech is words that they will bend. Metallica taught me that in 1988.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Being fired from your job over things you said has nothing to do with the right to free speech. That right means the government won't punish you. It does not stop anyone else from punishing you.
But you can easily make the argument MSNBC is suppressing there own "journalists" speech to not face backlash from the government. Just because the government isn't directly coming after an individual doesn't mean that they aren't at least attempting to suppress speech.
We've plenty of examples of Trump ignoring outlets he doesn't favor. And I wouldn't be surprised if he's outright banned some from attending press events.
What if the government is putting pressure on the organization.
Then it becomes a free speech issue.
You mean like back in 2020-21, when the Biden admin was putting pressure on Twitter to ban anyone who was critical of their COVID policies, and they even ended up deplatforming the guy who pioneered mRNA vaccines?
Yup, that is classic suppression. Of course you could argue that is was for the benefit of public health as opposed to a witch hunt to get a bunch of people fired for not worshipping an alt-right propagandist.
You don't think celebrating the murder of a political enemy on national TV isn't setting a dangerous precedent to encourage more political violence from both sides? Do you really want to live in a world where people just get shot for having a different opinion from yours?
First of all no one did this on national TV. Perhaps you referring to edge lords on the Internet making snide or rude comments. This is nothing to worry about. I heard people talk about hanging or shooting Obama for several years when I lived in Idaho. Celebrating and fantasizing about killing the President did absolutely nothing.
Second, we already live in a society where the right wing is constantly calling for violence. They have been openly talking about killing people from the Democratic party for decades. Rush Limbaugh was particularly found of this and he received the Medal of Freedom.
Let's be clear here, a couple of edgy people have celebrated his death. A lot of people recognize he was a piece of shit and are not upset at all other than to say no one should have to die this way.
The violent rhetoric comes regularly from the conservatives. Even the president of the United States sent a message he was bringing the Department of War to Chicago to enact an apocalypse. Kind of blows a few edge lords cheering on Kirk's death out of the motherfucking water.
Constitutional right to free speech? Yes. The overall philosophical concept of free speech? Less so.
It's just that only one side gets punished for it.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Posts like this, and most comments to be honest. Really makes me question how low the bar is in the US in terms of general education. You all talk about "Freedom of speech" while not having a single clue as to what it actually is.
Freedom of speech, protects you from your government (with some exceptions, often being, threats, incitement, disclosing classified information, and things of that nature), that's it.
Freedom of speech, is all of those people saying all of those things, without facing criminal charges or other forms of retaliation from the government.
It does not, will not, and never have, protected you from losing employment because of what you say.
Freedom of speech, protects you from your government (with some exceptions, often being, threats, incitement, disclosing classified information, and things of that nature), that’s it.
It doesn't protect you from the government in any practical sense. Just ask Hewy Newton or Fred Hampton or MLK. Ask Mahmoud Khalil or the 25 pro-Palestinian demonstrators arrested just three weeks ago. Ask Tatiana Martinez, A Colombian TikTok influencer in Los Angeles was arrested by ICE agents during a live stream.
The FBI has had task forces dedicated to COINTELPRO since the 60s. Freedom of Speech in the US is entirely fictitious.
What we're seeing in Mass Media is a trickle-down effect resulting from the US involvement in contracts to Tech Companies and large banks with ownership of private news outlets. Paramount settling a case over disparagement in a 60 Minutes interview with Trump for $16M came on the heels of an FCC decision about their merger with Skydance. The Bezos Post firing senior correspondents and staffing up with reactionary hacks comes as DOGE threatens a host of government contracts with Amazon's primary moneymaker, Amazon Web Services. Bloomberg getting peppered with lawsuits in Trump-friendly courts is a secondary result of Mike's feud with Trump on a national stage.
You are being wilfully ignorant if you refuse to draw a straight line between business sector firings of highly placed journalists and the parent companies of these media businesses cutting deals with the current administration.
load more comments
(3 replies)
You managed to be technically correct while missing the entire point of the post.
OP's quote is about being able to voice controversial opinions without consequences, not the legal protection specified in the constitution. He is claiming that only one side is ever held to account for saying odious things.
Adhering narrowly to facts without considering context is not demonstrative of good thinking, nor is it typical of good debating.
load more comments
(5 replies)
There's a distinction between 1st amendment free speech and, more colloquially, tolerance for free expression. The OOP was complaining about firings, so they are referring to the latter.
It's easy to understand people when you think for a minute and give them the benefit of doubt, I find.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Nobody ever said this was about the first ammendment. Its illustrating the double standards the oligarchs have set for everyone who isn't on their side. Everybody knows at this point the government and oligarchy are one and the same.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
The BBC was able to report on his controversy easier
view more: next ›