3 ms·
> whining about decorum in the interest of gaining an edge No, it's the principle of "I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it."
by khazhoux 4y ago
> whining about decorum in the interest of gaining an edge
No, it's the principle of "I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it."
The current trend is, instead: "Our voice has been silenced in the past, but now we will silence them!"
- majormajor 4y ago> No, it's the principle of "I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it." I don't believe that's actually true of anyone in power in the Republican party or evangelical church. It's just a line they trot out for PR. Their actions demonstrate that they are perfectly willing to benefit from mobs, intimidation, threats, and violence for their own ends. > The current trend is, instead: "Our voice has been silenced in the past, but now we will silence them!" Yes - the people who were silencing those voices are now claiming to support "I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it." - it's obviously bullshit since they were doing the silencing.
- khazhoux 4y agoSorry, I misunderstood your comment, or wasn't clear in mine.. I agree that there are many hypocrites out there who silence others every day but now clutch their pearls on this case. But my point was: the Stanford hecklers were wrong to drown out the Judge's speech, regardless of how his rulings or viewpoints impact them. I see a trend of people who have been historically marginalized, now feel empowered to silence others.