3 ms·

Funny. People suggest exercising their right to associate or not, freely as they choose, and exercising their right to use persuasive speech, and you equate it

Funny. People suggest exercising their right to associate or not, freely as they choose, and exercising their right to use persuasive speech, and you equate it to the use of force, to censorship, to silencing. And double funny: it started with trying to persuade someone to disassociate from the campaign/supporters of a man who literally talks about wielding the law to silence journalism he doesn't like.

smsm42 10y ago
I don't see anything funny with it. It's not the fact they speak or associate that is a problem. It's the goal of that speech and association - ensure that voicing dissent and disagreeing with orthodoxy would endanger one's economic and social well-being, to the point that nobody dares to do so. > who literally talks about wielding the law to silence journalism This is, of course, despicable and should be condemned. I certainly think it's one of the worst qualities in Trump and understand how that could be a deal-breaker for people not to vote for him. On the other hand, he is running against the candidate who has promised to use not just private libel law, but the full force of federal government regulatory machine to suppress the speech of her political opponents (and when I say "her opponents" I am not being rhetorical - it's the speech against her personally that she found so objectionable that needed the First Amendment to be overridden). And who was the member of the administration that was documented to use federal government to oppress political opponents. So I can also understand how for other people it can look prudent to choose the lesser evil (private lawsuits) over the bigger evil (systematic governmental oppression). In any case, both positions are legitimate and should be debated and put forward on the market of ideas. The idea, however, that association with one of these must make you a pariah - I don't think that will market very well. Or that I want to visit a market where it markets well.

smsm42 10y ago

I don't see anything funny with it. It's not the fact they speak or associate that is a problem. It's the goal of that speech and association - ensure that voicing dissent and disagreeing with orthodoxy would endanger one's economic and social well-being, to the point that nobody dares to do so. > who literally talks about wielding the law to silence journalism This is, of course, despicable and should be condemned. I certainly think it's one of the worst qualities in Trump and understand how that could be a deal-breaker for people not to vote for him. On the other hand, he is running against the candidate who has promised to use not just private libel law, but the full force of federal government regulatory machine to suppress the speech of her political opponents (and when I say "her opponents" I am not being rhetorical - it's the speech against her personally that she found so objectionable that needed the First Amendment to be overridden). And who was the member of the administration that was documented to use federal government to oppress political opponents. So I can also understand how for other people it can look prudent to choose the lesser evil (private lawsuits) over the bigger evil (systematic governmental oppression). In any case, both positions are legitimate and should be debated and put forward on the market of ideas. The idea, however, that association with one of these must make you a pariah - I don't think that will market very well. Or that I want to visit a market where it markets well.