5 ms·
All credibility is lost when she links to PragerU for her definition of intersectionality. Besides that, by her own logic of free speech, people have a right t
by jetpackjoe 6y ago
All credibility is lost when she links to PragerU for her definition of intersectionality.
Besides that, by her own logic of free speech, people have a right to call for boycotts/cancellations, do they not?
Free speech for me, not for thee?
- dahfizz 6y agoYou have the right to witch hunt in the same way that Karens have a right to not wear a mask in lots of places around the country. It's legally allowed but bad for society and you're a bad person for participating.
- happytoexplain 6y agoThe parent didn't say anything remotely approaching witch hunting, and you're calling them "a bad person"? This seems like a wild jump to express some very explicit anger.
- ajkjk 6y agoI think the mindset that "one off-color joke on social media leads to condemning a person entirely", as in the article, is the same mindset as "one off-color reference to a definition makes an article lose all credibility", and is toxic in either case. I see comments like this all the time on HN and it seems so unfair: the article says a lot of things that aren't affected in the slightest by whether she linked to PragerU.
- gfodor 6y agoThe absolutism you espouse wrapped up in guilt by association exemplifies the problem - if that was your intent, bravo.
- jetpackjoe 6y agoMy intent was to say that PragerU is partisan propaganda, not a source for definition. At best, someone could use it as part of an adversarial process at arriving at the truth, but the author doesn't do that. They take the definition at face value. (A ridiculous definition at that). I wouldn't use PETA for my definition of factory farming. So yes, if you aren't able to find a non-partisan definition , then I assume the whole piece is partisan, and therefore lacking credibility.
- hackinthebochs 6y agoThis is like trying to point out hypocrisy when someone calls for a restriction on falsely yelling fire in a crowded building. Some speech acts are incompatible with the ideal of free speech, and should be called out as such.
- notmarkus 6y agoYelling fire in a theater has never been a problem, it was only a metaphor used to defend the ridiculous supreme court decision that handing out flyers opposing the draft during World War I was an immediate threat to life and should therefore be banned. No one ever called for bans on yelling fire in crowded places. The US government called for bans on distributing pamphlets that went against their first attempts at imperialism.
- hackinthebochs 6y agoI don't see how you think this intelligently contributes to the conversation.
- emteycz 6y agoYelling "fire" or "help" without any danger in a public place is illegal in Europe.
- kangnkodos 6y agoDo you eat eggs? If so, how would you feel about a mob of vegans publicly demanding that you be fired from your job, or otherwise cancelling you because your beliefs are not far enough to the left?