"I'm for free speech but..."
Whenever someone takes this approach I either tune out or brace myself for some sort of totalitarian mumbo-jimbo-jumbo dressed up in "balanced" rhetoric.
Or in this case, Cathy Abreu of the Washington Post actually said, "he (Richard Dawkins) has no right to tacky tweeting."
Really? Am I the only one who sees something utterly disturbing in this logic? Wait, it contains no logic since it's all subjective. How the fuck does one determine what's tacky?
Tacky liberty I say!
I once had a girl tell me a Ferrari is "tacky." There's no limit or objective metric to determine what's "tacky" and I'm sure as hell not going to anoint Abreu for the job. Maybe Obama can create a Czar position for Tacky Tweeting.
All she's saying (to me) is, "I don't like what he's saying therefore it's tacky, ergo he has no right to free speech."
Listen pal, you're either for free speech or you're not.
It gets worst. Apparently, if you're a majority "you're fair game" to be criticized. Minorities are off limits.
The stupid is staggering on so many levels I can't even begin to digest it.
1984 folks.
It's here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.