Agreed. Quite a lot of people think deviating from the party line is reprehensible, but these things are all squarely within the Overton Window irrespective of mine or your opinion.

I’m curious about why you find Fang, Shor, etc reprehensible though.

I’ve said multiple times I cannot find the controversy you keep claiming happened to those two people, which to me speaks more loudly than the actual controversy they supposedly had.

I pointed you multiple times to their Wikipedia pages. Here are some direct links to the specific relevant sentences (I didn't post them before because I was busy and on mobile and I didn't realize how burdensome you would find it to find and skim their wikipedia pages). I'll quote the relevant sections as well in case you have a hard time working those links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Fang#:~:text=In%20June%202...

> In June 2020, Fang was accused of racism by Akela Lacy, a colleague at The Intercept. This occurred after Fang shared a Martin Luther King Jr. quote about remaining non-violent and tweeted out an interview in which a black man at a George Floyd protest expressed concern about black-on-black crime. Fang's tweets set off a "firestorm" on Twitter and he issued a lengthy apology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shor#:~:text=On%20May%20....

> On May 28, 2020, Shor tweeted a summary of an academic study by Omar Wasow, a black political scientist at Princeton University, that argued riots following Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination likely tipped the 1968 presidential election in Richard Nixon's favor.[19] Some critics argued that Shor's tweet, which was posted during the height of the George Floyd protests, could be interpreted as criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement.[20] Jonathan Chait wrote in New York Magazine that "At least some employees and clients on Civis Analytics complained that Shor’s tweet threatened their safety."[21] Shor apologized for the tweet on May 29, and he was fired from Civis Analytics a few days later.

Here's the Tweet that Shor's colleagues felt threatened their safety:

> Post-MLK-assasination [sic] race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2%, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon. Non-violent protests increase Dem vote, mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage. http://omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf

These events were also covered by other media outlets. Like the Wikipedia links above, you can easily find these via Google or any other popular Internet search engine.

So nothing at all to do with conservative voices being silenced, then. Why are we talking about them? You were asked for conservatives who were being silenced for saying conservative things, not generic times people got in trouble for saying things.

Kind of odd you equate racist statements with conservative statements. Why would that be?

We’ve already been over this. I wasn’t asked for conservatives who were being silenced—I was refuting the argument that the people being canceled or “called out” were saying reprehensible stuff. I certainly never equated racist statements with conservative statements. It seems like you’re not following the context of the thread and that’s adding a lot of confusion—clarifying basic thread context is not my idea of an interesting debate (not to mention repeating the same conversation about thread context) so I’m probably going to dip out.

You were asked for conservatives who were being silenced, not random people who had said inflammatory things, as that's the entire topic being discussed here. It's clear you can't come up with any, since you had to move the goalposts away from "conservatives" to "people you generally think got short-changed on the Internet".

I'm sorry again you seem confused, and again I hope you find clarity elsewhere, because this seems to have bothered you somewhat.