Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Was it? I don’t know. I just read what you wrote.
|
You read what I wrote and ignored it because it was inconvenient for your argument. I said: “ Anyone who once tried to get a fellow staffer blackballed from the publishing industry for using the word ‘fuck’ on Twitter, is maybe not the poster child for free speech that you are looking for.” It was pretty obvious to everyone here but you the point that I was making, which was that focusing on a person who perpetually complains about being a victim of “bullying” and being “silenced” while simultaneously bullying and silencing others does not compellingly support your argument that the radical Twitter left has a stranglehold on the marketplace of ideas. There are lots of ways you could have responded that would have not have been the weaselly dodge you came up with. You could have argued that, just because she has engaged in suspect behavior does not mean she was not, in fact, the victim of intellectual bullying herself. Or that her hypocrisy does not necessarily delegitimize her criticisms of the NYT. Instead, like you often do, you tried to sidestep the obvious point I was making and pretended instead that I was calling her out for being prudish about a co-worker’s Twitter language. These weaselly little dodges are transparent and make you look silly. And they are one of the reasons it is pointless to try to substantively engage you.
