I wrote earlier about how Twitter owner Elon Musk leveled liberal columnist Matt Yglesias with a question about free speech he couldn’t answer.

Yglesias tried to attack Musk on the issue of free speech for complying with the laws in the countries in which Twitter operates, claiming that he, Yglesias, was a “free speech absolutist.”

You’re such a numbskull. Please point out where we had an actual choice and we will reverse it.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 28, 2023

“You’re such a numbskull,” Musk responded, exasperated that Yglesias still didn’t seem to get it. “Please point out where we had an actual choice and we will reverse it.”

Musk said from the beginning that he had to comply with each country’s laws for Twitter to operate. That’s just a harsh reality. And there are many countries that do not have the same laws or the same kind of guarantees of freedom of speech the United States has. Musk — powerful though he may be — can’t change that. But Yglesias — who I didn’t hear raising big issues with the censorship that took place under Twitter 1.0 — attacked Musk, though, as I reported, couldn’t answer Musk’s question.

Yeah, answer the question!

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 29, 2023

What’s funny was Yglesias still kept going, even denying that there was a question there from Musk. This is liberal denialism of reality, on steroids.

It has come to my attention that some folks feel:

(1) That this is a question &
(2) That I should “answer Elon’s question”

My reply:

(1) That’s not a question!
(2) Every time Twitter is asked by a government to censor something they have a choice about whether to comply pic.twitter.com/X0h2r48Lzn

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) May 29, 2023

Yes. It’s a question, Matty, and you still didn’t provide any examples. If the choice is between complying with the law or not having any Twitter speech, it isn’t a choice. But even if you think that position is somehow wrong, Musk has been fully consistent about it. In places where he can — like this country — Musk has put his neck on the chopping block to fight the powers that be who would suppress speech — when Twitter 1.0 and liberals were completely cool with censoring conservatives. Where was Matty the absolutist calling out that real censorship? Seriously, he’s not even worthy of wiping Musk’s shoes when it comes to fighting for free speech.

Yglesias continued, saying that Musk could fight the laws in other countries and that he was making fun of Musk’s “absolutist” claims.

That is my complete answer: I have no answer whatsoever to the question “how should @elonmusk run Twitter.”

It’s his company and he can do whatever he wants with it.

But I will continue to make fun of the absolutist thing as long as he deserves it, as is my right.

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) May 29, 2023

But again, Yglesias fails to understand — or simply chooses to ignore what Musk said about following the laws of each country from the start — he’s been fully consistent. So Yglesias is just flailing in the wind at this point which shows you how much you can rely on anything he “reports,” given he doesn’t seem to comprehend that basic fact.

Yglesias got ratioed again and Elon awarded him the “Two Numbskull” award.

Insufferable numbskull

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 29, 2023

Musk also hilariously continued to chide Matty to answer the question.

Now answer the question

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 29, 2023

There’s a big difference between having to comply with the laws versus the censorship that existed under Twitter 1.0, suppressing the political positions that liberals didn’t like. Yglesias can keep spinning and getting ratioed, but he can’t argue away what happened before and what Musk has done for free speech.