Didn't do it. Don't know who did. Even though Snapzu allows one to qualify the reason for a downvote, they didn't. There's only one downvote, so there's a chance it was a misclick or a mistap. Doesn't take a lot of imagination to work out plausible reasons though.
Setting aside that the article appears to be linkjacked blogspam with a Patreon button, the plagiarized thesis is that a media cartel is interfering with the good works of school shooting truthers. You may've noticed school shooting truthers tend to viscerally disgust people with — whaddya call it? — moral compasses. So it's probably an opinion vote, or as Appaloosa might point out more of an autonomic nervous reaction vote.
To me, free speech is a principle that comes right before the Twilight Zone twist blowback you get for exercising it. The setup that tells you the punchline is coming. Here the article wants us to be outraged about Google's site curation, the setup, and uses one of the most emotionally-charged, toxic and bug-eyed crazy tropes of the lunatic right to make their point, the payoff. I wouldn't downvote it on that basis, but why be surprised it got downvoted?
It's not wrapped up in language about free inquiry because of the yeoman's work it does in furthering analytical thought. It's tarted up that way because it plays into the persecution fantasies that give the juices it stews in that elusive, zombie-eyed, hide-your-kids, if-pedophile-cultural-Marxist-crisis-actors-don't-exist-why-are-they-out-to-get-me flavor. Somebody noped the fuck out of there. And we're surprised there's even one?
Why in the actual F@#$ was this downvoted even once?
Didn't do it. Don't know who did. Even though Snapzu allows one to qualify the reason for a downvote, they didn't. There's only one downvote, so there's a chance it was a misclick or a mistap. Doesn't take a lot of imagination to work out plausible reasons though.
Setting aside that the article appears to be linkjacked blogspam with a Patreon button, the plagiarized thesis is that a media cartel is interfering with the good works of school shooting truthers. You may've noticed school shooting truthers tend to viscerally disgust people with — whaddya call it? — moral compasses. So it's probably an opinion vote, or as Appaloosa might point out more of an autonomic nervous reaction vote.
To me, free speech is a principle that comes right before the Twilight Zone twist blowback you get for exercising it. The setup that tells you the punchline is coming. Here the article wants us to be outraged about Google's site curation, the setup, and uses one of the most emotionally-charged, toxic and bug-eyed crazy tropes of the lunatic right to make their point, the payoff. I wouldn't downvote it on that basis, but why be surprised it got downvoted?
It's not wrapped up in language about free inquiry because of the yeoman's work it does in furthering analytical thought. It's tarted up that way because it plays into the persecution fantasies that give the juices it stews in that elusive, zombie-eyed, hide-your-kids, if-pedophile-cultural-Marxist-crisis-actors-don't-exist-why-are-they-out-to-get-me flavor. Somebody noped the fuck out of there. And we're surprised there's even one?