Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Anyway, the character assassination to discredit her point has begun in earnest, so expect no lessons to be learned here.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
It's simply easier to take shots at her personally in the hopes that that will distract from the point, which is, as noted, the reason for the immediate resort to character assassination.
|
Interesting points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Krystal is really dumb sometimes.
|
Huh. Funny how that works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Many of the signatories of the Harper’s letter have been outspoken critics of conservative censuring of speech for decades.
Why is it so hard to believe that someone can oppose orthodoxy and suppression of speech from everysource? Why the assumption of hypocrisy and partisan agendas?
|
It feels like a couple of you watched the video, but focused only what you wanted to listen to. The issue is, of course, that someone resigning from the New York Times because of presumed free speech issues is dominating the conversation, it's all self-proclaimed free speech advocates want to talk about. However, actual laws against and restrictions of free speech are being largely ignored. Do you have to talk about everything? No, but when self-proclaimed free speech advocates decide to go on long winded rants about the radical left and their thought policing based on liberal indoctrination from college (oh, hey Cliff!) and can barely get up to write two sentences about laws restricting protesting that effectively eliminates the ability to do so, it's see-through.
She rightly called it a rhetorical weapon that people without actual principles use, and surprise, some of the people who do that most often on this board are taking issue with it (oh, hey again Cliff, you keep popping up!). That's why it's hard to believe. Some of these people (not all, and that goes for public figures and posters here) that apparently care about free speech have a real habit about being loud on the unimportant things (reporter quits cause of the lib thought police!) and weirdly quiet on the important things (lawmakers pass actual laws that restrict free speech. It's hard to believe, because if it was based on principles, the energy you speed talking about it would reflect that.
In short, nobody buys your phoney complaining about free speech when you use it as a rhetorical weapon. Sucks to have your cover blown, I guess, but c'est la vie.