3 ms·

Beneath a veneer of neutrality in the headline ("attack from right and left"), the article mostly attacks republicans. The only criticism of a left-wing organi

Beneath a veneer of neutrality in the headline ("attack from right and left"), the article mostly attacks republicans. The only criticism of a left-wing organization is that the ACLU doesn't defend freedom of speech as much anymore. It doesn't mention the pressure on tech companies to censor more from the democratic party[1]. If you want to write a both-sides story about censorship, a great example would be the persecution of Julian Assange, the article doesn't mention that either. [1]: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-in-a-five-hour-hearing-demands-0cf https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-in-a-five-hour-hea...

jeffbee 5y ago
If you can link to an article where Glenn Greenwald wastes 4400 words ranting about BDS, but never bothers defining BDS because you are assumed to already know what that is, you are probably deep in an echo chamber.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  In a world where the goal is to mobilize your own supporters, not turn "swing voters" it is helpful to have grievances that can be endlessly recycled. If it wasn't for "cancel culture" Fox News might have to go somewhere and report the news, but somebody is always going to get "canceled" somewhere and even if they don't you can keep talking about somebody being canceled for years after it happened. The focus on BDS shows that Israel is no longer afraid of their neighbors and the Palestinians and now they can't bear it that somebody won't buy a Sodastream. (I was a little shocked to look through a big medicine cabinet though and not see anything from Teva.)
- the_third_wave 5y ago
  When I come across an unknown term in a discussion I take to the 'net to find out what it is all about. With new terms being born and bred every day this is not an uncommon occurrence which is I why I put that Searx [1] engine on my server, to be able to search without being pushed in a box by the incumbent search engine operators. This way I can use "politically charged" queries without marking myself as whatever it is I searched for. As to a "republican" attack on free speech I would point to Michael Knowles last book, "Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds" [2] for some examples of a proposed limit on freedom of speech in the style of "just because you can teach preschoolers about kink does not mean you should be allowed to" and similar examples. Interestingly enough the book is the best-selling non-fiction political book in the USA at the moment but it has failed to show up on the "New York Times bestseller list", pointing at part of the problem discussed in the book. He calls laissez-faire liberals and nominally conservatives "squishes" who need to stand up for their principles. He does have a point, it does not make sense to call yourself a "conservative", "libertarian" or "progressive" or what have you if you are not willing to both talk the talk and walk the walk. It is also important for people to speak their minds and not be silenced by a vocal minority, even if this means they are likely to suffer consequences for their speaking up. Sticks and stones break bones but words break employment contracts, employment opportunities and social connections. If we in the west are to survive the increase in speech suppression we need to speak out. If you do not agree you should enter the discussion instead of calling for an online mob to get someone fired. As it stands the silent majority outnumbers the vocal minority by a large amount, it is time for these people - on all sides of the debate - to start using their voices in a constructive way. Just speak your mind, your own mind, not whatever pablum is being pushed by "your side of the isle". Not everyone will have a thought-out opinion on all subjects - the homo universalis has become a very rare species since the industrial and scientific revolutions - but if enough people dare to speak their mind it should be possible to come to a real consensus, possibly/probably straddling "party lines". Sometimes there just is no consensus nor should there be since "once side" is demonstrably wrong but even that should be allowed to be said, by anyone, from any "side". [1] https://searx.me/ https://searx.me/ [2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55385983-speechless https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55385983-speechless

jeffbee 5y ago

If you can link to an article where Glenn Greenwald wastes 4400 words ranting about BDS, but never bothers defining BDS because you are assumed to already know what that is, you are probably deep in an echo chamber.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
PaulHoule 5y ago
In a world where the goal is to mobilize your own supporters, not turn "swing voters" it is helpful to have grievances that can be endlessly recycled. If it wasn't for "cancel culture" Fox News might have to go somewhere and report the news, but somebody is always going to get "canceled" somewhere and even if they don't you can keep talking about somebody being canceled for years after it happened. The focus on BDS shows that Israel is no longer afraid of their neighbors and the Palestinians and now they can't bear it that somebody won't buy a Sodastream. (I was a little shocked to look through a big medicine cabinet though and not see anything from Teva.)
the_third_wave 5y ago
When I come across an unknown term in a discussion I take to the 'net to find out what it is all about. With new terms being born and bred every day this is not an uncommon occurrence which is I why I put that Searx [1] engine on my server, to be able to search without being pushed in a box by the incumbent search engine operators. This way I can use "politically charged" queries without marking myself as whatever it is I searched for. As to a "republican" attack on free speech I would point to Michael Knowles last book, "Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds" [2] for some examples of a proposed limit on freedom of speech in the style of "just because you can teach preschoolers about kink does not mean you should be allowed to" and similar examples. Interestingly enough the book is the best-selling non-fiction political book in the USA at the moment but it has failed to show up on the "New York Times bestseller list", pointing at part of the problem discussed in the book. He calls laissez-faire liberals and nominally conservatives "squishes" who need to stand up for their principles. He does have a point, it does not make sense to call yourself a "conservative", "libertarian" or "progressive" or what have you if you are not willing to both talk the talk and walk the walk. It is also important for people to speak their minds and not be silenced by a vocal minority, even if this means they are likely to suffer consequences for their speaking up. Sticks and stones break bones but words break employment contracts, employment opportunities and social connections. If we in the west are to survive the increase in speech suppression we need to speak out. If you do not agree you should enter the discussion instead of calling for an online mob to get someone fired. As it stands the silent majority outnumbers the vocal minority by a large amount, it is time for these people - on all sides of the debate - to start using their voices in a constructive way. Just speak your mind, your own mind, not whatever pablum is being pushed by "your side of the isle". Not everyone will have a thought-out opinion on all subjects - the homo universalis has become a very rare species since the industrial and scientific revolutions - but if enough people dare to speak their mind it should be possible to come to a real consensus, possibly/probably straddling "party lines". Sometimes there just is no consensus nor should there be since "once side" is demonstrably wrong but even that should be allowed to be said, by anyone, from any "side". [1] https://searx.me/ https://searx.me/ [2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55385983-speechless https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55385983-speechless