Here's an example of just how confused they are about how freedom of expression works. People fond of anti-free speech discourse tell us that 'the right to free speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of your free speech'. When that consequence is limited to others using their freedom of expression to push back on what you said - not punching you in the face for saying something they don't like - I agree. So far, so good.

(3/?)

But on 1 of 200 they claim that when people using their freedom to say progressive things get viscious comments back from people using their freedom to push back *verbally*, that they therefore don't have freedom to speak. What kind of bullshit 4-dimensional doublethink is that?

So it's fine to publicly threaten to punch people coz "Nazis" (for some, any vaguely conservative thing they disagree with), but it's not OK for conservatives to be aggressively wrong *verbally*. FTS.

(4/?)

The thug's veto is wrong, whoever is using it. It's wrong when fascists make death threats against women and LGBTQ+ people for defending their rights. It's wrong when lefties reserve the right to accuse people they disagree with on identity issues of being "Nazis" and threaten physical violence.

It's wrong whoever does it. All the time. No exceptions.

(5/?)

But at the same time, if you comment on highly-polarised issues in a public forum, people are going to disagree with you, and not always politely. That's public life, regardless of what identity markers you're rocking. If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

I'm not saying don't have opinions, or don't ever express them. Not at all. But there are other, safer places to do that than the flame rooms of corporate social media platforms. Maybe make more use of those?

(6/?)

As for the bullshit smear that anyone who defends freedom of expression is a right-winger, aligned with the Free Speech Onion, eat my arse. Liberals, socialists and artists *invented* the fucking freedom of expression principle. As a way of defending ourselves against conservatives, capitalists, and censors who only want to see and hear stuff that supports their biases.

Freedom of expression benefits the left far more than the right, and always has.

(7/?)

People like the 1 of 200 muppets have allowed the right to hijack freedom of expression as a cause celebre. By allowing themselves to be baited into exactly the anti-freedom rhetoric this episode of their podcast is full of.

Stop being fucking Useful Idiots for the right, you muppets. You call yourselves liberals and/or socialists. How about you STFU for a while and do some reading about what the originators of those terms thought about freedom of expression, huh?

(8/?)

Another classic example of the doublethink in action;

"... whenever you have regulations or TOS ... that is meant to protect people, the people who utilise that are most likely people who are in the dominant social group."

#DrCassandraMudgeway, 2025

1of200.nz/podcast/1200-s2e166-…

Right, so she agrees with us that unless it's designed *very* thoughtfully, ramping up moderation, shadowbans, etc, will end up hurting people from marginalised groups more than protecting them, right?

Wrong 🤦‍♂️

(9/?)

1/200 S2E166 - Online Political Violence

We talk with Dr Cassandra Mudgway about the increase in online violence over the last decade, the ways in which it is presenting in NZ and some of the possible solutions.

^{Kyle Church (1/200)}

More warmed-over 2010s muppetry from 1 of 200;

Criticising Andrew Little for criticising social toxicity towards Tori Whanau without offering any constructive actions he could take as the new Mayor ...

... without offering a single constructive action they were going to take beyond snarky verbiage. Or even suggesting actions that are within a new Mayor's powers.

(10/?)

Like, a new Mayor could;

* start a review of correspondence policy for councilors and senior officials, to see if they can be screened from abuse without violating privacy

* start programs to track patterns of abusive messages, identify regular offenders, and pass on dossiers to police for harassment or intimidation charges

* increase citizen participation in day-to-day council business, transparency of process, and co-design of urban planning, to reduce public-council alienation

(11/?)

But the gold metal winner for total lack of self-awareness on this 1 of 200 episode has got to be slamming the idea that people live in different political realities.

I mean, are some aspects of our realities socially constructed or not? The one plank of identitarian dogma I actually agree with, but even that gets tarred and feathered when an argument they don't like depends on it 🤷‍♂️

(Yes it's taking me all day to listen to one episode, it's too irritating to swallow in one go)

(12/?)

Oh thanks goddess, it's finally over. The crowning absurdity was the claim that the reason we can't regulate tech properly is ACT defending free speech, and they await a new regime thay won't 🤦‍♂️

3 things;

1) They don't. Have you heard what they've said about speech critical of militant and crypto-fascist Zionism?

2) That's not why. It's that we're barely having the debate yet about the deep structural reforms needed

(13/14)

3) Having lived in China for a couple of years, hearing closet Maoists yearn for the aggressive removal of democratic rights by govts is simultaneously chilling and hilarious. Turkeys voting for an early Christmas.

Fucking muppets. This is who I have to share the NZ left with, and why I'm mostly a keyboard warrior these days. Years ago I dealt with people like this in person, and it's like being dragged into wrestling in a foul swampy brew of offal and sewage. No thanks.

(14/14)