Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The old rule was bad ideas would be countered by either being ignored or critiqued with other speech showing their flaws.
|
The well established rule is that it takes 10 times the energy to debunk bullshit as to spew it. I don't think this rule has changed in thousands of years.
Quote:
Substack is like a finger in the eye of the current youth gestalt: An offending voice should not be countered, but silenced as much as possible, and have economic pain inflicted on it.
|
This is opposed to the voice of the Citizens United crowd: the sound of a voice should be commensurate with its commercial sponsorship?
I think youth is just kind of sick of all the bullshit needing to be countered. Maybe it's a good idea to suggest spreading bullshit shouldn't be quite so profitable?
After all, it's not really about the speech, if it were, people like those you cited (Greenwald Sullivan Harris et al. - what a group of groupthink morons!) would spend some time saying something intelligent and supporting it rather than honing their skills at spreading total bullshit that's also offensive enough to get attention for them and their sponsors? These asshats are just about the payday.
Threaded Mode