You haven’t demonstrated support for free speech until you defend speech that you hate. Similarly: You haven’t demonstrated support for, or an understanding of, nuance until you defend it even when your “side” is winning.
This bugged me re: the Hogan/Gawker thing — totally obvious that had it involved, say, an actress of equivalent fame filmed during sex w/o her knowledge & a right-wing rag publishing the tape, there’d have been a total reversal of the principles deemed crucial + desired outcome
-
-
Agreed. Which means the arguments aren’t the tools they seem to be—for many people they are window dressing, able to be trotted out, but not actually how decisions are being made. Emotion, partisanship, a sense of belonging—these drive people more often than logic does.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I was continually amazed in that debacle that people were defending Gawker... at all, ever, for any reason. Flabbergasted.
@RyanHoliday's book on the topic is great.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.