Ethics Dunce (But FUNNY!): Alyssa Milano…

…who tweeted,

I was going to include poor Alyssa’s tweet in a post under construction about the Elon Musk Twitter take-over freakout, but this is so special it deserves special attention. The former child-star turned full-time social media-obsessed Hollywood has-been embarrassment  really outdid herself this time. She added even more evidence to the already air-tight case that progressives, the Hollywood left and mainstream media regarded Twitter as their own propaganda organ and a crucial tool in censoring opposing views while indoctrinating the public to achieve their partisan goals. She again illustrated the truism that celebrities typically have little of value to contribute to public policy discourse. When one is biased, ignorant and ill-informed, it is best not to widely distribute your incompetent and irresponsible analysis of current affairs.

About the tweet:

1. Milano contends that new Twitter boss Musk allowing non-progressives to have the same opportunities for expression on a public bulletin board as do such left-wing dolts as Rob Reiner, Bette Midler and Milano constitutes “hate and white supremacy.” Could there be a better example of how the Left has embraced totalitarian methods and values?

2. Notice also the alliance these would-be censors presume they have with virtue-signaling corporations, which are expected to use their economic power to silence one half of public debate.

3. I left the funny part until last. Milano proudly announced that she is giving up her Tesla, which she associates with white supremacy through some labyrinthine analysis, for an electric car made by Volkswagen, a company which, as Alyssa might know if she had ever attended a competent school rather than getting her education while being tutored on the set of “Who’s the Boss?,” was a creation of the Nazis under Adolf Hitler.

This level of ignorance-peddling might have gotten a conservative tweeter suspended by the pre-Musk version of Twitter. Luckily for the rest of us, we can now get a good laugh from idiotic tweets like Alyssa’s, “misinformation” though they may be. In April, the clueless former child star tweeted, “I’m not leaving Twitter. I’ve never considered leaving Twitter. It doesn’t matter who owns the company — my platform is — my platform. I’ll be right here continuing to use my voice and sharing truth.”

Milano calling her moronic tweets “truth” is also flagrant misinformation, but that’s OK! What she tweets is also very informative—about her.

17 thoughts on “Ethics Dunce (But FUNNY!): Alyssa Milano…

    • Rest assured, on this new iteration of Twitter, she is being called out on that, quite voluminously.

      One or two wags have even offered her a free lesson in “The Internet Is Forever 101”, digging up all of her past tweets gushing over how much she admires some dude named Elon Musk. My personal favorite is the one where she includes him as one of the four guests in her hypothetical ultimate dinner party, alongside Jesus, John Lennon, and Roberto Clemente… The word “dolt” does not even begin to do justice to this woman.

      The part of my brain that gawks at car accidents and industrial disasters absolutely adores Twitter for providing access (from a safe distance) to the mental processes of people suffering from a terminal combination of Dunning-Kruger and political brain-rot, like Milano. The rest of my brain thoroughly abhors it, though.

  1. “Volkswagen, a company which, as Alyssa might know if she had ever attended a competent school rather than getting her education while being tutored on the set of “Who’s the Boss?,” was a creation of the Nazis under Adolf Hitler.”

    I am bringing popcorn and an easy chair for when someone explains the Volks thing to Alyssa.

    At least she is pretty which makes rendering harsh judgement more of a challenge.
    Is that sexist?

  2. Here is an argument in favor of Twitter censorship (from a comment on another blog)

    Jonathan – Here’s a hypothetical for you to put into your “free speech” pipe and smoke: You argue an important case in front of the Supreme Court. When the decision is published months later, you turn on the TV and they say your side lost. But, you download the ruling, and it appears you won!

    The mass media in unison continue to insist your plaintiff lost. You call the NYT for an interview, and they brand your “opinion” that you won as disinformation. You get an interview with a e-rag with a circulation of 1 million, and it is summarily ignored or branded as infowarfare. However hard you try, your message is effectively blocked.

    In my hypothetical, do you still defend the major media org’s right to its own interpretation of a court decision?
    If so, where do you draw the line? If the 1st Amendment protects willful, deceitful disinformation about an official government action or result, not by a single voice, but in concert by an unorganized alliance of media and tech giants acting against the government, then you are advocating for insurrective infowarfare on a mass scale. There are certain conflict-settling and justice-advancing events taking place in a democracy that must carry authority — you can disparage such results, but not claim that the opposite occurred.

    Twitter drew a line at Trump’s disinformation campaign about him “winning the 2020 election by a landslide”.

    Whether you call that exercising editorial judgment, or denial of free-speech, what matters most is that one group of citizens (Twitter) thwarted irresponsible and insurrective abuse of those freedoms. As a result, we’re Thankful to not be fighting a violent civil war over who is the legitimate President 2021-2025.

    Your definition of free-speech invites anarchy, alienation and ultimate descent into armed warfare over irreconcilable narratives. It’s just not persuasive the wide berth you are giving to public mendacity. Yes, we need ample room to express opinions, including divergent thinking. But, the question of Court decisions, or who was certified as winning an election — those are not matters of opinion. Without certainty about such matters in the public infospace, there can be no civilized government. There can only be rule-of-the-jungle.

    • Terrible. Using Bizarro World hypotheticals to argue real world ethics is intellectually untenable. He’a talking about a media-wide conspiracy to deceive the pubic and defeat the Constitution. Such a situation could only occur where there is no freedom of the press or speech—it’s a totalitarian scenario, and thus irrelevant.

      Trump didn’t say he was certified as winning the election. He said he won by a landslide and the votes were. You t miscounted. That’s an opinion. He is also welcome to say he’s God. You thwart abuse of freedoms by showing they are being abused, not by retracting the freedoms.

      Bad argument.

  3. Hitler even suggested the “beetle” design to Ferdinand Porsche.

    Watching competing interests…green technology versus literal Nazis.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.