If they can make you believe absurdities, they can make you commit atrocities

 Andrea Widburg again has an excellent article citing a Tucker Carlson Tonight monologue. If you didn't watch it, or don't have it recorded, Widburg has his monologue embedded her the post at the American Thinker entitled Tucker savages Ketanji Brown Jackson, transgenerism, and tech tyranny. Jason Whitlock said it best when he quoted Voltaire "If they can make you believe absurdities, they can make you commit atrocities." This is what I mean by being "demoralized."

Even before Ketanji Brown Jackson's extraordinary statement that she does not know what a woman is, I'd concluded that she's a dim bulb and, really, the judicial equivalent of Kamala Harris: an uninspiring Black woman who's floated effortlessly upward through affirmative action and fealty to leftism. I'd spent the day mentally writing an attack on her, only to see Tucker Carlson hold forth with an incendiary monologue that attacked her "I'm not a biologist" lunacy, the whole transgender madness that the left is advancing, and the real agenda of remaking society in an ugly way, especially through the death of free speech.

As you watch it, keep in mind a point I've made repeatedly: the giveaway that this whole transgender thing is a con is the word "transgender." If swimmer Will Thomas really were a woman (and really believed he is a woman), he wouldn't call himself a "transgender woman." He'd just say, "I'm a woman." The same is true for Richard Levine, the assistant secretary for health.

Yes, you should watch Carlson's monologue, but you should also read Widburg's article because she offers some expanded thoughts.

If you watched the whole video, you saw that Tucker covers Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal's express attacks on free speech, which he considers a danger to a "healthy" society, a danger that he and others like him must destroy. 

Here's a different way of thinking about the social media sites' role in America. Combing the principles behind the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes what Agrawal is saying and doing unconstitutional and unlawful — as in, attorneys general need to step in to stop them.

The Civil Rights Act arose because private businesses were shutting their doors to people based on race. One could argue that freedom of association gave these businesses the right to choose who was allowed to enter. But that's not the path Congress chose. Instead, in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress stated:

(a) Equal access All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

In a way, social media are places of public accommodation. Today's censorious tech giants, rather than being in the business of selling food, lodging, or entertainment (the targets of the Civil Rights Act), are in the business of selling and re-selling ideas. If they close their doors to classes of people they dislike, their monopolistic status means that the targeted class is out in the ideological cold.

Like I said, go read Widburg's post.