Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If we want to assume the everyman takeaway from that conversation, it'd be:
Harris: "Hey, I want to talk about why people should be able to talk about dicey shit and not be shunned for it."
Klein: "I think they way you're doing it should be shunned."
Harris: "Who the fuck are you?"
Klein: "I'm concerned about other people."
Harris: "I'm not."
Klein: "You should be."
Harris: "I'm engaging in purely abstract reasoning regarding censorship here."
Klein: "That kind of limited discourse on this issue should be avoided, and shunned where not."
Harris came off mean, Klein officious. I'll take mean over officious. YMMV.
|
Rather than quote them, which you couldn't do, you've moved to your own "everyman" and his take on the conversation. It's a nice trick -- since it's inventive and hypothetical, it's irrefutable. I don't think you are characterizing either Harris or Klein fairly, but whatever.
You are not an everyman. Moreover, the idea that an everyone would have a worthwhile take on their conversation is silly. Everyman doesn't give a shit. You listened to the podcast because you care more than Everyman, and because you're a Harris fan, a Klein hater, or both. Or because the subject moves you -- I don't know. If you have something useful to say about their dialogue, it's because you care enough to engage with what they actually said.
Threaded Mode