LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 2,774
0 members and 2,774 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 07-16-2020, 12:41 PM   #2515
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,231
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
You want to hold a mirror up to Sebby. But Sebby can't recognize himself.
That’s all fine, but it’s not relevant to my point.

I am not advocating banning cancel culture. I’m arguing that it is:

1. Stupid (the McWord “counter-speech” demonstrates its idiocy... there is no such thing - there is just speech);
2. It’s low culture and should be mocked as such (bleating that someone should be fired for violating orthodoxy is something the poorly educated do);
3. Alternatively, it should be ignored (don’t feed the trolls).

I do not seek to stop anyone from saying anything. My argument is that thinking adults should disagree on the merits of positions. That’s enlightened. That’s what sophisticated people do. The cancel culture people are just left wing variants of the idiot Trumpkins.

If you wish to defend people of low mind, to embrace their bleating, have at it. I just don’t think they should be taken seriously. I think one has to be able to think broadly and in a circumspect fashion to be considered worthy of engagement. Screaming for boycotts or firings was garbage-think when Brent Bozell and Pat Robertson did it, and it remains so today.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 07-16-2020 at 12:49 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:42 AM.