LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 174
0 members and 174 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
View Single Post
Old 03-08-2021, 02:02 PM   #4466
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,080
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
When someone to the right talks about race and gets a critical response, you fret about "cancel culture" and talk about how we need to remember the Enlightenment.
No. When someone on the right or left talks about race and gets a critical response, that's traditional free speech. A person says something, and someone disagrees.

OTOH, when a person says something about race (or anything, really) and in reply, another person calls for that person to be boycotted, or to lose their job, or to be socially ostracized, that is not traditional free speech. It is still free speech, of course. Just not enlightened, traditional, classically understood free speech. It is not engagement, it is certainly not criticism. It fits the analogy of being a "total war" response.

Quote:
When someone to the left talks about it, you talk about how total warfare, without the fretting.
Talking about, or critiquing, something and calling for the boycott/firing/shunning of a speaker are two very different things, which you know. You're trying to conflate them to make two very different reactions seem alike.

Quote:
"Precluding the exchange of useful free expression" is exactly what you say you don't like about "cancel culture," but you might as well be an Air Force colonel talking about Vietnamese body counts in 1967. "Yes, that napalm has a substantial impact on hard targets like that elementary school."
Idk where you were going with this.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:20 AM.