Twitter was wrong to ban Laura Loomer
If your protest tactic sounds like it could have been in a Beavis and Butthead cartoon in 1995, you are doing it wrong. Uhhh huh huh huh.
What far too many conservatives do not understand is that disagreement with certain protest tactics does not mean that you do not support "fighting back." Disagreement with certain tactics certainly does not mean you are actually on the other side. Movements throughout all of history have had disagreements on tactics. We should not be making enemies of our own side over things like this.
A case in point: Laura Loomer was unjustifiably banned from Twitter a couple weeks ago. Loomer tweeted about radical Islam's danger to Jews, women and homosexuals. Of course, she is right and her opinion is a relatively mainstream opinion. She was absolutely right to complain about the ban. I have complained about having posts hidden by Facebook, and I have complained about the moderation practices of the local newspaper's comment section. As customers, we have the right to complain about bad service and the right to argue about matters of public importance.
But come on, we can do this in a mature way. If you are chaining yourself to a social media company's front doors because they banned your account, you are either a complete nutcase or desperate for any attention to the point you will pull any stunt to get just a few seconds of camera time. Loomer wore a Yellow Star (more on that in a minute) and said she would urinate in her pants if necessary. If your protest tactic sounds like it could have been in a Beavis and Butthead cartoon in 1995, you are doing it wrong.
Was Twitter's ban unfair? Yes. But it is in no way equal to the Holocaust or the persecution of Jews in pre-war Nazi Germany. Wearing a Yellow Star trivializes a horrific campaign of genocide. It damages her credibility and hurts her cause to evoke the Holocaust. (It does demonstrate that Godwin's Law is true.) Frankly, Loomer needs to apologize to her fellow Jews for this stunt.
Some would argue that Loomer's stunt brought attention to her cause. But the ban already brought attention to her cause. I had personally never heard of Loomer before she was banned from Twitter. I am sure there are many like me who did not know who she is, and now do because of the ban and conservative social media making a stink about it. It increased her reach to complain, and for her supporters to complain about the ban. Chaining yourself to a door and threatening to urinate on yourself takes a legitimate complaint and makes it into a circus.
Michelle Malkin said those who supported Jesse Kelly and mocked Loomer "don't get it." No, we actually do get it. Kelly complained about his ban publicly, spoke about it on Fox News, and encouraged others to complain. Loomer invoked the Holocaust, chained herself to Twitter's front door and threatened to urinate on herself. Do you really think there is no substantive difference between the way each of them handled their respective bans? Guys, we can do better than this. We can make our point without making fools of ourselves. Let's do that.