A few years back, there was a collective freak-out about free speech issues on college campuses. "Safe spaces," microaggressions, and an ideology which viewed words as potentially harmful weapons and had built-in defenses against any counter-argument.
-
-
What don't you see? A mention of Click specifically?
-
Or any defense of what she did.
-
A day after a state official commits an act of censorship thru a violent threat, to say, "now's a good time to rethink free speech anyways" is to defend her, basically.
-
Without wanting to be contumacious, that’s pretty thin gruel.
-
What would be the other point of making that statement at that moment, then? What thought was being conveyed?
-
“Her actions were defended by pundits.” That seems to have dwindled to “One pundit not mentioning her said something not sufficiently hostile.” As I say, thin gruel as analysis of a press trend.
-
You didn't answer my question. What did Cobb and Gay mean, if not to defend Click?
-
Tbh I didn’t seen any defense of her. That it’s somehow hidden between the lines is hard for me to credit. So I think the idea that “pundits” rushed to her defense seems not justified by the evidence. We disagree which is fine.
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.