Whose Ox?

Rachael Levine, man masquerading as a woman nominated by some liberals as woman of the year.

Years ago, I joined Facebook for about fifteen minutes. I don’t know what possessed me to join. But I do know what caused me to drop out. Somebody in the string of commenters made the following comment:

“I hate judgmental people.”
A sycophant replied, “Me too!”

I couldn’t resist. What can I say? I appreciate irony. I replied, “In order to hate judgmental people, don’t you first have to be judgmental?” I thought it was a reasonable question. I got reported to the Facebook police and received a stern warning. I’m willing to play in any sandbox, except the one that the cat uses. That did it for me.

This brings me to Twitter. The Babylon Bee posted a story naming Rachael Levine as their nominee for, “Man of the Year.” In case you haven’t been paying attention Rachael Levine is homely man suffering from a mental illness, Body dysmorphic disorder. He is masquerading as a woman. He has been so successful in his fraud that President Poopy Pants has made him Assistant Secretary of Health. In addition to being able to wear a pastel chiffon dress with sling back heals, Levine can now add an Admiral’s Uniform to his closet. I can’t help wondering if the band strikes up the opening song from Gilbert and Sullivan’s “Pirates of Penzance” when he takes the stage. But I digress…

At any rate Twitter decided that the Babylon Bee was in violation of the Twitter terms of service and demanded that the offending post be removed. Babylon Bee declined to do so. Babylon Bee is a forum that specializes in satire. Satire is supposed to be provocative. It is not to be taken literally. The conflict comes about because Twitter is run by liberals. Liberals are unable to recognize irony or satire. In much the same way that they are unable to recognize Rachael Levine’s balls hanging below the hemline of that cute dress. Who makes men’s size twelve sling back pumps?

Which brings me full circle to my original thought. In order to recognize speech as hateful, doesn’t one have to hate the content? Is exercising censorship to satisfy one group disenfranchising another group? Does that mean the censorship action can legitimately be considered hate speech? Which came first?

Germany in the 1930’s or Jack Dorsey leading a Twitter team building exercise?