
William Chegwidden
5K posts

William Chegwidden
@ChegTraductions
Bridging cultural gaps and having fun doing it.
















We must be “much closer to the EU and we just need to be clearer about that” says Keir Starmer



"On ne reconstruit pas un pays avec ceux qui l'ont détruit": Jordan Bardella étrille Gabriel Attal, Bruno Retailleau et Édouard Philippe qui "ne devraient pas se présenter" à la présidentielle en 2027 l.bfmtv.com/9mH5



«Macron ne pense qu’à son intérêt personnel et à son prochain coup de com’. Les dirigeants n’ont pas de convictions patriotiques assez fortes pour changer le pays. Patriotisme dont nous avons besoin pour agir dans l’intérêt général de la nation», préconise @fogiesbert dans Esprits Libres, présenté par @AlexDevecchio.



When a white supremacist gunned down 10 black people in a Buffalo supermarket in 2022, the NYT's @Jbouie and other liberals blamed mainstream conservatives for "inspiring" the anti-immigration views in whose name that shooter killed. Bouie claimed in the NYT that the killer's manifesto was "virtually indistinguishable from mainstream Republican rhetoric," and conservatives thus bear blame. Liberals wanted Jack Smith to prosecute Trump for the violence on January 6 based on this same theory: that Trump "inspired" the January 6 violence because his speech "inspired" that violence and they acted in the name of Trump's repeated claim that the 2020 election was stolen. The Right also embraces this theory, as they're doing now: blaming liberals and Trump critics for last night's WHCD's shooter because the would-be assassin's manifesto shows he acted in the name of common anti-Trump sentiments (ironically, last night's shooter actually did read and liked many liberal statements, including those of Jamelle Bouie, Wil Stancil and other partisan liberal luminaries). All of this is dumb. Words are not violence. You're not responsible for someone's violent acts because they share some or even all of your views. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that preserving the distinction between words and violence is vital for basic conceptions of free speech (see Claiborne v. NAACP (1982). You allowed to express opposition to open borders, and you're allowed to criticize the American President, even harshly, without being held responsible if some lunatic uses violence in the name of your views. Bouie in 2022:













