ADVERTISEMENT

Israel under attack from Hamas

I think you're being too generous. Those complaining before were complaining because conservatives were taking it in the mouth. Same reason the other side was spiking the ball.

I like your reasoning, Brad, but most of this is just obviously tribalism.
I think you are projecting. The silly snarks might be tribalism. Most of the serious comments about the issue are not. Your response to Brad shows you don’t see the . . . nuance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Hamas shares their rule over 'Palestine' with Hezbollah in The West Bank.

Because it ended up so well after Israel created Hamas to counter the MB and Fatah...

Again, wholly funded by the American taxpayer's ability to pay a $Trillion annually of interest.
Israel didn’t “create’ Hamas.

They helped create what they thought was a non violent counterweight Fatah and the PLO.

It only became Hamas later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark and DANC
I agree that if you're only complaining or defending people you agree with, you are probably engaging in inconsistency. But I think there are lines that can be drawn. They are tough to ferret out, and they will always be subject to disagreement, but that doesn't mean one is a hypocrite or inconsistent.

Re First Amendment issues, I'm an absolutist. The govt should not censor or fine you for any opinion expressed based on the merits (even this has a fuzzy line with incitement and I recognize that).

Re private citizens "cancelling" each other through social pressure, someone posted a tweet from a DC area lawyer and I think she got it right: normally, we should want to have free speech and debate with people who disagree with us. But some opinions are so far outside the norms of a civilized society, that debate isn't helpful and those people should be shunned (socially by those who care about that issue).

Defining exactly where that line is, is difficult, maybe impossible. But I don't think it's difficult to say that (1) defending the butchering and burning alive of babies and raping innocent young girls is one the wrong side of the line, and (2) aligning oneself with a Trump-era policy (wanting a border wall built, or fewer immigrants) is on the debate-side of the line. (I also think BudLite is on this side of the line).

You're right that a lot of gamesmanship can be played in moving these lines. But I think those worried about cancel culture before were complaining about where the line was being drawn, not that there might be a line at all.
Even though I am a strong free expression advocate, I have trouble affording those who advocate eliminating free speech the privilege of free speech. This is becoming an issue as many. In the public sphere police free expression and weed out certain individuals who say certain things.
 
I think you are projecting. The silly snarks might be tribalism. Most of the serious comments about the issue are not. Your response to Brad shows you don’t see the . . . nuance.
Nonsense. Since I'm one of the few here who didn't rush to join a side in the cancel culture debate, I'm one of the few least likely to project.

I can see nuance just fine...when it actually exists.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
That is the world we live in though. There are a whole host of people who believe that political disagreement is a fireable offense. COVID "deniers" were fired. Republicans were denied service at restaurants. Conservative speakers face mini riots for having the temerity to show up on college campuses to talk. Why? Because mostly "Progressives" (a subset of liberals) have unilaterally declared that their politics are human rights, our words are violence, and their violence is righteous. Well now they are giving the Charlottesville Tiki Torchers a run for their money and are facing some consequences and now all of the sudden we need to be able to freely disagree in this country. Because an equal exchange of ideas is how we arrive at consensus? Nah. Not that. It is because these little fascist ----- are finally getting a healthy dose of what they have been serving up for years.

Being openly or borderline antisemitic doesn't fly with a bunch of adults in this country. When they publically let that freak flag fly, people are going to take notice. After hopefully many of them receive the public shaming and ostracization they have so gleefully handed out to their political opponents in the past, we can come back and have a talk about if this is really how we want to do discourse in the country.
Alanis Morisette wants to know if it is ironic that you make a tit-for-tat post in a thread about the conflict between Israel and Palestinians?

I think it's fine that people who are actually supporting the killing of babies or are hating Jews for being Jewish are ostracized for those views. If that's what they are actually doing, have at it. If you have to make that kind of thing up to try to score political points, the bad is on you just as it was on progressives who made shit up about conservatives. And Brad's right about the sliding scale of consequences. Age and degree of awfulness in the speech matter quite a bit.

Just don't complain when it comes back around and someone tries to ostracize a conservative for something they think is horrible because you've already signed on to this way of doing social business. And you've corrupted it by saying that it's about taking scalps.
 
Nonsense. Since I'm one of the few here who didn't rush to join a side in the cancel culture debate, I'm one of the few least likely to project.

I can see nuance just fine...when it actually exists.
An idea: instead of gotcha'ing one another about who said what in the past and who is and isn't tribal, you two should try staking out the boundaries of what you think is and is not "acceptable," what counts, etc. that could work for each side.

Most of us would like to read what you two might say on that issue, rather than trying to get in shots at the other. If you want to do that, you should take it to the . . . forget it, @larsIU ruined it for me. :(

Just a suggestion.
 
You want to call out the people being hypocrites, I endorse your actions. I'm calling out the sudden supporters of cancel culture myself. What I'm not doing, and want I encourage you to avoid, is changing what you support and then dismissing it as a response to someone else's hypocrisy.

If someone argued that free speech has consequences back then, they should stick with that now. But if you argued the opposite then, you need to stay consistent. Point out hypocrisy; don't join it.
Except you didn't condemn anyone for their belief in cancel culture then. But you make sure to do it now.

Isn't it nice, having it both ways?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
If your nuance results in you supporting the cancelling of only those you disagree with, then you can intellectualize it all you want, but it's just hypocrisy.
It's no hypocrisy if those are the rules we're living by. I don't remember seeing any Leftys decrying the cancel culture, so them's the rules now.
 
It's breaking down before our eyes, actually.
Sure is. The Marxists always come for religion first. There is no such thing as ethics that aren’t grounded in religion. You tear up the flower bed of religion and the flower can survive for a time on water, but eventually the flower dies.

There is no compelling argument that an ethical, secular society is possible.

Those who advocate for ethical secularism have a pretty naive view of human nature. And think an awful lot of themselves.

“I don’t need fairy tales to tell me right from wrong”

What a crock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Sure is. The Marxists always come for religion first. There is no such thing as ethics that aren’t grounded in religion. You tear up the flower bed of religion and the flower can survive for a time on water, but eventually the flower dies.

There is no compelling argument that an ethical, secular society is possible.

Those who advocate for ethical secularism have a pretty naive view of human nature. And think an awful lot of themselves.

“I don’t need fairy tales to tell me right from wrong”

What a crock.
So, you do need fairy tales to tell you right from wrong?

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
 
I read just fine.
Then you should know that I was critical of the left when we discussed cancel culture the first time, and you should recognize that I'm condemning no one now. I'm only calling out hypocrisy.

@BradStevens I'm not in the business of one-upping anyone, but how am I supposed to respond to people whose first instinct is to throw false accusations at me?
 
An idea: instead of gotcha'ing one another about who said what in the past and who is and isn't tribal, you two should try staking out the boundaries of what you think is and is not "acceptable," what counts, etc. that could work for each side.

Most of us would like to read what you two might say on that issue, rather than trying to get in shots at the other. If you want to do that, you should take it to the . . . forget it, @larsIU ruined it for me. :(

Just a suggestion.
Hey, don't get down on The Octagon! Steve Jobs failed quite a bit before he hit a home run. Maybe make the throwdown interface a little more user friendly and rebrand it the iOctagon?
 
Just don't complain when it comes back around and someone tries to ostracize a conservative for something they think is horrible because you've already signed on to this way of doing social business. And you've corrupted it by saying that it's about taking scalps.

It started over here. I am hoping holding feet to the fire convinces Progressives to back off. As far as sliding scale, Covington HS kids say hi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spartans9312
Then you should know that I was critical of the left when we discussed cancel culture the first time, and you should recognize that I'm condemning no one now. I'm only calling out hypocrisy.

@BradStevens I'm not in the business of one-upping anyone, but how am I supposed to respond to people whose first instinct is to throw false accusations at me?
I don't know. I don't like it when people do that to me. Do what you need to do to not think about it anymore, I guess.

I just think you and CoH offer interesting, many times contrasting, views on things and would prefer you two discuss the merits of stuff rather than "you're this" "No you are" type of back and forth.

For what it's worth, I generally think of you as critical of the excesses of the left in the free speech space, which must come from your previous posts, even though I can't cite them.
 
It started over here. I am hoping holding feet to the fire convinces Progressives to back off. As far as sliding scale, Covington HS kids say hi.

Is choosing a car political speech that deserves being attacked for?

 
I don't know. I don't like it when people do that to me. Do what you need to do to not think about it anymore, I guess.

I just think you and CoH offer interesting, many times contrasting, views on things and would prefer you two discuss the merits of stuff rather than "you're this" "No you are" type of back and forth.

For what it's worth, I generally think of you as critical of the excesses of the left in the free speech space, which must come from your previous posts, even though I can't cite them.
It’s the teacher and the student. Mentor and prodigy. Friction is unavoidable
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BradStevens
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
After the Israelis offered an emphatic “Hell No” to the idea of humanitarian ceasefires, Blinken appears perturbed.

 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT