5 ms·
I'm all for diversity in thought - typically though this kind of thing gets flagged on HN. After 9/11, invasion of Afghanistan and both Iraq wars there were so
by padseeker 6y ago
I'm all for diversity in thought - typically though this kind of thing gets flagged on HN.
After 9/11, invasion of Afghanistan and both Iraq wars there were songs banned from the radio and people were thrown out of malls for wearing t-shirts that were anti-war. Conservatives were all for that or had little to say about stifling free speech concerns. The argument was its private property and companies can do what they want.
There were plenty of pro war advocates that brow beat anyone who disagreed with any of those military actions. There was very little anti war sentiment on any of the major networks in the run-up to Iraq 2003. The disparity of pro war to anti war advocates on all the major networks and cable news channels was heavily tilted towards being in favor of invading Iraq. I recall watching Nightline on ABC when it still did heavy and serious news, when Ted Koeppel hosted it. They had a very honest forum about both sides, it was very even handed and I felt like everyone in America should have seen it, as it may have had more influence on the country. No one was watching it at 11:30 EST, and quite frankly it was too late. Nobody at Nation Review complained. It was all too convenient for them.
And now that the mood of the country has shifted so much that even Rush Limbaugh has the hosts of a black radio program, and even the typical right wing blowhards concede maybe there's a problem with racism and policy brutality. And the National Review, which has trained the political and cultural attack dog, that typically goes after those on the opposite side of political spectrum, suddenly they are afraid that the monster they've helped create is coming back to get them. And the comparison is so weak its pathetic. Just because NYT subscribers (full disclosue I am one) didn't think they should have published is crappy editorial. Suddenly we're the Chinese Cultural Revolution. This is pathetic.
Tom Cotton, a senator who could have published his editorial anywhere, and the NYT, a barely center left newspaper got grief about publishing it. No one is shutting down Tom Cotton, the subscribers of the NYT could and would have heard about Senator Cotton's ideas anywhere. What a bunch of whiners.
- non-entity 6y ago> Conservatives were all for that or had little to say about stifling free speech concerns. The argument was its private property and companies can do what they want No one is actually principled. They just use these sort of ideals as a convenient talking point when it supports what they want, and it's not just Republicans.
- lookupthere 6y agoThis is entirely true. It's also the reason that more and more extreme ideas flourish. The disingenuous engagement disillusions more reasonable people. People left of center see how Barack Obama was treated for the mildest of progressive ideas, and then decide that there's no point playing nice. I'm sure there is a similar analogy for conservatives. If you don't listen to reasonable, accommodating people, don't be surprised that you are selecting for people on the extremes.
- robotron 6y agoOh and look - you're downvoted for this opinion! Conservatives are not even hypocrites, this stuff is just talking points in an attempt to get one over on "the left".