Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I was referring to the journalists and pundits and bloggers of the moment who have contributed to, enable, or engage in practices of cancel culture.
I’m referring to the overheated voices who think because their passion is so intense, their cause so urgent and compelling, no critique of it, and certainly no opposition to it may be engaged, but rather anything that “does not aid the movement” should be shunned, and anyone speaking such things be made a pariah.
|
Wouldn't this be more interesting if you could name and quote, like, maybe one of these people who so get under your skin? I mean, given your dedication to salon culture and traditional debate and analysis at all, you could model a more traditional response to one of them, instead of dismissing them with rhetoric ("bleat") and failing to engage with what they're actually saying. Pot, kettle, black.
Quote:
|
ETA: I think the establishment voices who signed the Harper’s Letter will be quite vocal in disdain for what’s happening in Portland, if they’ve not been so already. But they’ll criticize it as illegal, unconstitutional. Their less circumspect colleagues who absorb “the new truth” will bleat incoherently about it, call Trump a new Hitler, and do something futile, like starting a petition to demand Fox fire Tucker Carlson for defending the use of minivans and anonymous federal agents.
|
What's telling to me is that you have more enthusiasm for criticizing these less circumspect colleagues of the establishment voices than you do for saying anything about paramilitary federal officers disappearing protestors off the streets of Portland. One is a real, actual, ongoing threat to free speech -- a cancel culture, if you will, to make GGG's point so obvious that you can't miss it.
