Hypothesis: I wonder if @notCursedE's version is an(other) example of a narcissistic-individualistic corruption of liberalism.
"How dare an authority trespass on *my* right to ..." etc etc
-
-
-
No, I think she's all for freedom. She just categorises it in different ways and doesn't define freedom of speech as I do as part of a broad principle of progressing liberal democracy but a smaller, local one about people being allowed to literally speak.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
The problem is about deception too. If you listen to some academic speakers properly, they are often giving a nuanced point, whereas the protestors massively exaggerate and simplify what the speaker represents (in short, the protestors often lie about the person's views).
-
For example, when some people make a point that immigration needs to be controlled in SOME circumstances, some people will hear them saying "All immigrants are scum, keep them out" instead, and they'll then accuse the person of being racist. This happens again and again.
-
The problem with this strategy, is that it doesn't challenge the speaker in a reasonable way (by engaging with them, and trying to get them to realise flaws in their argument). But it also discredits decent protestors, who actually DO have a message.
-
Another problem again, is that if people accuse people of being racist, when that person is not being racist, it waters down the message of when an actual racist is challenged. My point is, that protestors often exaggerate, and end up creating a lot of harm!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.