Objectively intelligent.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If that's what he meant, he would have talked about the law and legal rights, not "customs," which are different.

And there have always been topics which "custom" has decided that do not warrant free inquiry. NAMBLA did not get invited to run op-eds when we were young, and they still don't.



Ah, yes, the left-wing cancel mobs. I thought about meeting up with one on Friday -- we were going to go to a golf-course and try to chant about the overuse of pesticides until all the golfers gave up and resigned their memberships. But it was raining, so I stayed in and listened to Terri Gross archives.

When you say college-campus intolerance, are you talking about Liberty University, yes?



My point is a broader one, which is that for decades now the technology to publish your views has gotten cheaper, and the opportunities have gotten broader. Substack is only the most recent example.



Lots of people decide wrong, so empirically it does seem to be a problem.



Free inquiry doesn't seem to do society as much good if so many people just stay in their silos.



If you don't like CNN, stop watching it, right? You have lots of choices. Choose something else.



Nope, not at all. You are so aggressively conventional on this subject!



Maybe in their national political reporting, but not as an institution more generally.

I’m sure I speak for the entire board when I say it is hard enough to read this drivel, but can you please try to keep a focus on proper grammar?