If you have a strong reaction to this, and had the opposite reaction when social media lockouts were used against the other party, I’d suggest a new approach: decide where you stand on the tool/weapon based on foundational principles, regardless of whether it’s currently being wielded by people you agree or disagree with.
Were any of the candidates blocked here inciting a violent insurrection in an attempt to overturn an election? Because I'm pretty comfortable with that being grounds for blocking.
Assuming your premise holds, that’s a fair example of a principle-based distinction, which is what I’m advocating for.
Would you hold the same standard, and react the same way, if the parties were flipped? The hard part is answering that before looking for differences. Confirmation bias is powerful, and if any of us start from a conclusion, we’ll always find a justification.
If an outgoing Democratic president had used his platform to undermine free and fair elections, they should not only be denied the megaphone they used. They should be prosecuted, imprisoned, and barred from any future office.
It's perfectly possible to have a consistent stance on the tool and feel differently about the tool's application in different circumstances.
You're implying that if two things occurred with inverted political parties, then they can't also have other differences. I think there's a probably a name for this fallacy, considering how common it is.
If you have two instances in mind that you think actually are the same except for the inverted political parties, and you can find somebody here who disagrees on that pair, then that would make sense to engage with, rather than this vague broad implication of hypocrisy.
Agreed, that’s the point. The first part describes the inconsistency; the second is how to avoid it. If your principles lead you to react the same way both times, the test doesn’t apply to you.
