5 ms·

> They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, or report the truth. I am shocked and saddened this is where we are as a society

> They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, or report the truth. I am shocked and saddened this is where we are as a society. Literally one man's opinion distressed so many people, in such a way, they felt the need to raise an army and then descend on their employer and demand they remove, recant and say it will never happen again? We have arrived at a time in place where you cannot have your own opinion without fear of the rage mob coming after you. “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” George Orwell -1984

evgen 6y ago
That man was a United States Senator who suggested using the military to suppress political dissent. The suggestion that this is some minor newspeak squabble or a brief outbreak of political correctness grossly underplays how dangerous this suggestion was and the seeing you try to use Orwell to support your point is even more ridiculous.
- happythomist 6y ago
  Actually, the op-ed states: > Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence. Setting aside whether using the Insurrection Act to respond to rioting and looting is an appropriate response, it is quite clear that Tom Cotton is not advocating the use of the the military to "suppress political dissent", which would obviously violate the First Amendment.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    The insidious part of suppressing dissenting opinions is that it gives carte blanche to lie about what those opinions were.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    This gets confusing, because many (including cotton elsewhere) intentionally blurred the lines between protestors and "rioters", and stood behind plans that served to suppress peaceful protest. People on this forum are usually quick to remark that free speech is powerful and important and worth protecting even at great cost to individuals. Property damage caused by a small number of violent actors falls into this category, especially when the majority of the protests were peaceful and actively discouraged property damage. So yes, Cotton's plan would have served to suppress political dissent and therefore probably violated the first amendment (and the third). Printing a sitting senator advocating for violating multiple constitutional rights without a disclaimer to that effect is a disservice to nyts readers.
    - opinion-is-bad 6y ago
      Destroying things that do not belong to you is not free speech.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        I never said it was. I said it was a cost to protect free speech. Do you believe that Cotton, the Police, or the National guard will be able to stop only those looting without accidentally arresting, shooting or otherwise harassing anyone who is simply protesting? Do you believe deployment of the national guard won't have a chilling effect on people protesting? If you want to protect the speech (or in this case assembly) of the many, you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of the few who will abuse that right. Otherwise, implicitly, what you're saying is that (a relatively small amount of) property is more valuable than the right to protest an unjust government.
      - ori_b 6y ago
        Bringing the military in on stopping it is crossing the Rubicon. In as literal a sense as you can get without living in Italy. Regardless of feelings on the current situation, the idea of getting the military involved should be extremely unsettling to anyone living in a democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Rubicon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Rubicon For a more contemporary quote from battlestar galactica: Adama: There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  >...who suggested using the military to suppress political dissent. This, of course, is not what he actually said - but it's what you heard that he said. Because that is the nature of the time that we're in, and why what Orwell said is relevant.
  - justin66 6y ago
    > This, of course, is not what he actually said This is false, unless you're contesting he did not literally write "we should use the military to suppress political dissent" in that exact sequence of words. I cannot figure out whether you don't think deploying troops in cities under the Insurrection Act counts as "using the military," whether stopping the protests is not "suppression," or whether you're suggesting the protests should not be defined as "political dissent." All these things are false. The relevant Orwell quote would seem to be "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."
    - remarkEon 6y ago
      I'm pointing out the words he literally wrote on the page because there's a bunch of people in this thread who are doing what you're doing, which is making a blanket proclamation that Cotton wanted the military to essentially attack protestors, which isn't true. That actual quote is all over this thread. The rest of your argument is a careless strawmanning, or projection, since the words on the page have actual meaning, words which you can put in front of your nose at your own pleasure.
      - justin66 6y ago
        > making a blanket proclamation that Cotton wanted the military to essentially attack protestors, which isn't true I question whether you've actually read his editorial.
        remarkEon 6y ago
        I question whether you are actually able to draw a distinction between "peaceful protestors" and "rioters and looters". Your entire argument hinges on tricking people into thinking "subdue rioters and looters with the military if police can't or won't do it" is equivalent to "shoot protestors".
AftHurrahWinch 6y ago
> Literally one man's opinion distressed so many people, in such a way, they felt the need to raise an army and then descend on their employer That one man's opinion was that we should raise an army and then descend on me and my friends. Paradox of Tolerance.
- philwelch 6y ago
  You and your friends were smashing windows and stealing weapons from police vehicles?
- asguy 6y ago
  So? Maybe you and your friends are doing something wrong. Maybe I should be able to learn about an alternate opinion, and then decide that the opinion is dumb, using my own brain and reasoning. Do you not see how dangerous it is to stop people from discussing a topic openly and freely? What happens when this censorship and attempt at controlling the narrative is aimed at you? Do you want to be the recipient of this treatment?

evgen 6y ago

That man was a United States Senator who suggested using the military to suppress political dissent. The suggestion that this is some minor newspeak squabble or a brief outbreak of political correctness grossly underplays how dangerous this suggestion was and the seeing you try to use Orwell to support your point is even more ridiculous.

happythomist 6y ago
Actually, the op-ed states: > Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence. Setting aside whether using the Insurrection Act to respond to rioting and looting is an appropriate response, it is quite clear that Tom Cotton is not advocating the use of the the military to "suppress political dissent", which would obviously violate the First Amendment.
- philwelch 6y ago
  The insidious part of suppressing dissenting opinions is that it gives carte blanche to lie about what those opinions were.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  This gets confusing, because many (including cotton elsewhere) intentionally blurred the lines between protestors and "rioters", and stood behind plans that served to suppress peaceful protest. People on this forum are usually quick to remark that free speech is powerful and important and worth protecting even at great cost to individuals. Property damage caused by a small number of violent actors falls into this category, especially when the majority of the protests were peaceful and actively discouraged property damage. So yes, Cotton's plan would have served to suppress political dissent and therefore probably violated the first amendment (and the third). Printing a sitting senator advocating for violating multiple constitutional rights without a disclaimer to that effect is a disservice to nyts readers.
  - opinion-is-bad 6y ago
    Destroying things that do not belong to you is not free speech.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      I never said it was. I said it was a cost to protect free speech. Do you believe that Cotton, the Police, or the National guard will be able to stop only those looting without accidentally arresting, shooting or otherwise harassing anyone who is simply protesting? Do you believe deployment of the national guard won't have a chilling effect on people protesting? If you want to protect the speech (or in this case assembly) of the many, you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of the few who will abuse that right. Otherwise, implicitly, what you're saying is that (a relatively small amount of) property is more valuable than the right to protest an unjust government.
    - ori_b 6y ago
      Bringing the military in on stopping it is crossing the Rubicon. In as literal a sense as you can get without living in Italy. Regardless of feelings on the current situation, the idea of getting the military involved should be extremely unsettling to anyone living in a democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Rubicon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Rubicon For a more contemporary quote from battlestar galactica: Adama: There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
remarkEon 6y ago
>...who suggested using the military to suppress political dissent. This, of course, is not what he actually said - but it's what you heard that he said. Because that is the nature of the time that we're in, and why what Orwell said is relevant.
- justin66 6y ago
  > This, of course, is not what he actually said This is false, unless you're contesting he did not literally write "we should use the military to suppress political dissent" in that exact sequence of words. I cannot figure out whether you don't think deploying troops in cities under the Insurrection Act counts as "using the military," whether stopping the protests is not "suppression," or whether you're suggesting the protests should not be defined as "political dissent." All these things are false. The relevant Orwell quote would seem to be "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    I'm pointing out the words he literally wrote on the page because there's a bunch of people in this thread who are doing what you're doing, which is making a blanket proclamation that Cotton wanted the military to essentially attack protestors, which isn't true. That actual quote is all over this thread. The rest of your argument is a careless strawmanning, or projection, since the words on the page have actual meaning, words which you can put in front of your nose at your own pleasure.
    - justin66 6y ago
      > making a blanket proclamation that Cotton wanted the military to essentially attack protestors, which isn't true I question whether you've actually read his editorial.
      - remarkEon 6y ago
        I question whether you are actually able to draw a distinction between "peaceful protestors" and "rioters and looters". Your entire argument hinges on tricking people into thinking "subdue rioters and looters with the military if police can't or won't do it" is equivalent to "shoot protestors".

AftHurrahWinch 6y ago

> Literally one man's opinion distressed so many people, in such a way, they felt the need to raise an army and then descend on their employer That one man's opinion was that we should raise an army and then descend on me and my friends. Paradox of Tolerance.

philwelch 6y ago
You and your friends were smashing windows and stealing weapons from police vehicles?
asguy 6y ago
So? Maybe you and your friends are doing something wrong. Maybe I should be able to learn about an alternate opinion, and then decide that the opinion is dumb, using my own brain and reasoning. Do you not see how dangerous it is to stop people from discussing a topic openly and freely? What happens when this censorship and attempt at controlling the narrative is aimed at you? Do you want to be the recipient of this treatment?