3 ms·
A) Criticizing an idea so that others understand how it is flawed. B) "Criticizing" an idea to get it expunged from various media to manipulate what ideas peop
by gambler 5y ago
A) Criticizing an idea so that others understand how it is flawed.
B) "Criticizing" an idea to get it expunged from various media to manipulate what ideas people are exposed to.
If you even pretend that there is no difference between A and B, you're not worth intellectually engaging with.
- jakelazaroff 5y agoSure, but the point here is that the NYT is engaging in B.
- tptacek 5y agoThen you shouldn't have any problem with what Ken White is saying here, because he makes that distinction at great length.
- gambler 5y agoI don't need someone gaslighting me about an article that I've just read. Here is what it says: "The Times also errs by utterly failing to grapple with the problem that “cancelling” represents free speech and free association." It's a strawman conundrum that White constructs all on his own. It might seem very clever to people who think freedom of speech is some kind of mechanistic rule to puzzle over. Not clever at all when one considers the reason why it became a value for modern societies. Not only White conflates the two behaviors I mentioned in my post above, he reinforces the confusion by equivocating a riot at Berkley with ridiculing someone.