Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
This is not the boring part if you do it (i) with specificity - for example, by noting that the presence of a gathering of members of the religion from all over the world allows ideas and plans to be transmitted more quickly than in other religions, you say something interesting; and (ii) noting the contras as well as the pros for your position - for example, by noting that there are longstanding Islamic theologies, going back to the original Caliphate, that provide a unique conceptual framework for allowing other religions to continue to be practiced in a territory otherwise run by faithful muslims, and one that, by virtue of special taxes, even gives the rulers a reason to avoid full conversion, and that this meant that, for example, Medieval Andalusia was a more diverse and accepting society for the most part when compared to post-reconquista Spain.
This is the interesting part that no one in that interview has any interest in.
Do you want to think about that "prior restraint" phrase? I mean, prior restraint is a concept that has meaning and relates to state action and is not present in any of these situations.
What you seem to be fascinated by is that people don't want to say unpopular stuff and don't want to look stupid. Really?
To the first, well, buck up, speak your peace, and deal with it. Yes, much of what I have to say on Israel is unpopular and Hank will hassle me when I say, and sometimes preemptively. Tough snoogies, as long as Hank doesn't get the state to apply a prior restraint (see how it is used!), assault me over it, or get to have a judge fine me or throw me in prison because I said it.
To the second, I wish more people were seriously concerned with not looking foolish. [Stares at Sebby].
|
I used “cultural prior restraint” because I could not think of another word for the concept. I’m aware it’s a state action. I regret the lack of consistency in using it a second time without including “cultural.” I assumed it related back to the first use, so I didn’t need to use it twice. My bad.
If people like Harris are so foolish, why is there an effort to shut them down preemptively? You and I disagree on a lot, and I find when I try to make you look foolish, I often fail. But when I let you write at length, I often succeed. I trust you feel the same about me. And this would fit within the rule, “Buck up and take the blowback.”
That which anyone feels the need to preemptively protect usually has a hole in it. I’m confident we agree on that axiom.
Threaded Mode