Yes. Context is different, but by definition it is not.
Are you for real? Like, do you actually believe this? To be clear, it looks like you’re equating the federal government violating first amendment rights to the court of public opinion cancelling someone. Is that really what you’re trying to do here, or am I missing something?
Also I’d actually advise against using the term “retroactive thought crime” at all in this case, because there’s no reason to invent new words for something we already have really fucking good words for, which, again, is “first amendment rights violation”.
Are you for real? Like, do you actually believe this? To be clear, it looks like you’re equating the federal government violating first amendment rights to the court of public opinion cancelling someone. Is that really what you’re trying to do here, or am I missing something?
Also I’d actually advise against using the term “retroactive thought crime” at all in this case, because there’s no reason to invent new words for something we already have really fucking good words for, which, again, is “first amendment rights violation”.
You know what? I latched onto a single thing and misinterpreted what was being said.
You’re absolutely right. This is about the first amendment and the context is very different. I’m sorry.
Let’s definitely put the pressure where it’s deserved—this shit, weaponized administration.