Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ] |
| Subject: Re: P.S. | |
|
Author: Jimmy |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05:35:32 10/01/07 Mon Author Host/IP: c-71-197-21-170.hsd1.mi.comcast.net/71.197.21.170 In reply to: Kylopod 's message, "Re: P.S." on 12:23:07 09/29/07 Sat First off, I know where you are coming from. It's your scope that frightens me a tad. I'll play O'Brien. "What do you mean? Liberals have been at the forefront in getting controversial figures kicked off the air. Remember what happened to Dr. Laura?" Perhaps my scope needs a bit of altering then. I've always assumed that liberals, like Donohue, believed in allowing their opponents the time to speak for two reasons: the first, now concluded to be ostensible, is so that we'll all have it; and the second was so that they could smash down the sheer lunacy of the fringe. I've always assumed that the Left controlled the narrative...and until recently that HAS been the case. Regarding Dr. Laura, I never cared for her but my old man liked her. Whatever the Left did to her must have occurred while I was in Okinawa. "The fact is, free speech has never been a good defense against losing one's job on the air, unless you think that the networks have a legal obligation to include all points of view. If so, how far must they go? Are they required to have Holocaust deniers and flat-earth theorists?" Depending on whose doing the attacking, free speech is still a good defense. That's a fact and we all know it. Who is going to take a Holocaust denier seriously? But a flat-earth theorist...why not? Ever been outside our planet? Taken a look at it? They could be lying. I don't think so YET science is the new religion and if you don't accept it you are labeled the idiot. My girlfriend likes to think of herself as a very enlightened soul and for all practical accounts, she is. Yet, I excoriated her and her science a few weeks ago during a severe bout of depression. I almost made her cry by exposing that she simply attaches an explanation for everything TO science and that not being a scientist herself, like 99% of this country, that she is being played. Possibly. What happened to skepticism? I'm not getting off track because you, yourself, made me realize the importance of Libertarians and how they make us think...yet, they certainly ARE considered an ‘antiquated fringe' when it comes right down to it. "I'm not saying that firing people for their opinions isn't a form of censorship. It is. But it's soft censorship, the kind that everyone practices to some degree. It's not the kind of censorship that the First Amendment seeks to banish." My fear is that a scumbag like Ahminididddyjad gains more power by being banished. Let him speak; let him make a fool of himself. And yes, Bollinger HAD to admonish him prior to giving him that right. "I personally don't think Dr. Laura should have been shafted. I was no fan of her program, and I didn't agree with her stance against gay adoption." Sure you didn't. You have two hetero parents. "But I don't think it was so far beyond the pale that it deserved only to be silenced. (As for her characterization of homosexuality as a "biological error," I'm not convinced she was wrong.)" Seriously? cool. Of course, people have different ideas of what's beyond the pale. It also changes with the times. Anti-miscegenation laws seem beyond the pale today, but they weren't forty or fifty years ago. And if I'd lived back then, I would have welcomed debate on the subject. In the present day, such a debate would not be beneficial, because it would just be giving voice to a fringe element that currently has no influence on our system. Anti-gay laws will probably one day seem just as antiquated, but for now it's a worthy topic of debate." Here is your fatal flaw. So long as the narrative follows YOUR arc, it's good-to-go. “When people scream "free speech," most of the time they aren't really defending free speech. All they're saying is, "I can tolerate this viewpoint, even though other people can't." The real test of commitment to free speech is the defense of views that are beyond the pale. It doesn't mean going out of your way to give such views a platform; it means simply that they should be free of legal penalties (which firing isn't).” I totally agree with the first part of that and I’m a little apprehensive towards the second. Let’s look at the platform and who controls it. Just because the people in charge of filtering our news right are noble men (and women) doesn’t mean that will always be the case. You are giving them the power to decide what the masses get to hear. Who are these people in charge? This was at the heart of Nunberg’s only failing in “Talking Right.” It’s Elitist and that’s dangerous. “Most people realize this. Almost no one would fault a newspaper for failing to include the viewpoints of fascists or communists. People scream "censorship!" only when newspapers (or networks) suppress views that are considered to be reasonably within the mainstream. The free speech argument is a red herring… " Dying metaphor!!! Besides, I disagree. Donohue defended Nazi’s and the KKK. They are not mainstream. "...in these circumstances, because very few people would argue that every view must be given a platform on the networks. “ Again, is this platform written in stone? Because if so, that means the networks have a lot of power. And just because they’re with us now, doesn’t mean they always will be. They’ve established control through their filter and one day we could be the ones on the outside looking in. You know how the right has seized on minor disparities and blown them out of proportion and succeeded in convincing large blocs of ignorant masses that there was a need for Fox News. “The only real argument is, "Where do we draw the line between views that are beyond the pale, and those that aren't?" So where do we draw that line, sir? It’s already been decided is my point. And once we become comfortable with allowing them to decide what platforms are acceptable that precedent, having been firmly established as reasonable, can then switch to other ideas once different regimes gain control. "Just because people disagree on the answer to that question doesn't mean broadcasters must greenlight everything." And then we have a filtered news system that can be manipulated by the Right to fire up a base of morons. And move-on to do the same for the gypsies on the Left. You and Nunberg WILL NEVER see this. But I go out and mix it up. A few weeks ago I attended a bohemian art fair in Detroit with my girl, her gay cousin and his boyfriend. Needless to say, this was not my crowd but I have fun in environments I’m not used to—so long as they are in minor doses. At any rate, all the stands were run by tired old hippies who couldn’t debate their way past the surface. “ I Hate Bush” is as far as they could go. So I bought a Bush button—he was making a stupid face—and told them that in these times we need a man like Bush in charge. Well, within 5 minutes of pinning it to my chest a black buy told me that it wasn’t such a good idea to be wearing that button in Detroit. I hit my joint, drank my beer, looked him in the eyes and said: “Well, I guess I’m just going to have to take my chances.” [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| Re: P.S. | Kylopod | 05:12:57 10/03/07 Wed |
|
||
|
Forum timezone: GMT-14 VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB: Before posting please read our privacy policy. VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems. Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved. |