Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think it's a real argument, and nothing would surprise me more than having you give it a serious response, even if you don't agree. Read this, for example, and take what those journalists said seriously.
eta: Just to be clear, this sort of thing is what I was referring to and which you mistook as a reference to the defenestration of Don McNeil. What happened with McNeil has very little to do with what the NYT or anyone else publishes. |
This story has nothing to do with cancellation. This is a story about minority voices demanding to be heard.
Do you not see that this is a story in favor of greater freedom of expression?
How do you see a story about voices desiring to be heard and use it as a defense for people who are seeking to banish, fire, and stigmatize others?
Seriously, the perverted logic of what I think is your argument demonstrates just how lacking - utterly lacking - your defense of cancelling attempts (or attempts to prove them to be something else, or somehow justified) truly is.
In no universe but a truly bizarre and backward one could a person demanding to be heard be equated with a person seeking to stop others from being heard or punish them for saying what they don't like. These two camps cannot share the same space. They are mortal enemies, and they are fighting the same villain. In the case of minority voices, they are fighting an old guard that ignored them. In the case of cancel targets, they are fighting a crowd of people who seek to silence them or harm them. In both cases, voices are being silenced. In both cases, the villains are those silencing those voices.
This line of argument actually supports my position. I'm puzzled as to why you'd make this so easy.
