“Liberal ideals are vital. But they become a poison when we invoke them to preserve an undeserved privilege.” I would love to hear your view on the JK Rowling discussion. Until then I was very much in the “cancel culture” is hysterical. But then I challenged the definition of the JK post as “hate speech”. The interesting thing is when you have two groups of people that have been systemically impacted by society. If you object to the definition of a woman being an adult human being then you are classed as a bigot and a respectful discussion is hard to navigate on both sides of opinion. I went on a BLM March but I believe that identity politics is doing more harm than good. If it’s alienating me then how can it create meaningful change at scale. If we “other” people they will dig into their identity and traditions, which ever side of the fence we are on, or even if you’re quite happy sitting in the middle (like most of the uk pop), you’re asked to pick sides. That’s why it’s such a powerful tool for the populists.
So, do you or do you not think that senior elected representatives of the people have the right to make their views heard in the pages of the newspaper of record, even if those views “offend” some of the staffers on that paper?
You cannot make the case that voices in favour of the BLM-Antifa terrorists are excluded from the NYT: they are almost ubiquitous there, as they are across almost all elite media. So your long prose about excluded voices contributing to the conversation can't be about the BLM-Antifa terrorists: they are already the loudest voices. The real question is whether the elite media should be purely a propaganda sheet for your preferred views, or whether it should occasionally allow balancing views to be heard, such as Senator Cotton's - the real excluded voices.
So I ask you again, what is your opinion? Because your piece doesn't say.
“Liberal ideals are vital. But they become a poison when we invoke them to preserve an undeserved privilege.” I would love to hear your view on the JK Rowling discussion. Until then I was very much in the “cancel culture” is hysterical. But then I challenged the definition of the JK post as “hate speech”. The interesting thing is when you have two groups of people that have been systemically impacted by society. If you object to the definition of a woman being an adult human being then you are classed as a bigot and a respectful discussion is hard to navigate on both sides of opinion. I went on a BLM March but I believe that identity politics is doing more harm than good. If it’s alienating me then how can it create meaningful change at scale. If we “other” people they will dig into their identity and traditions, which ever side of the fence we are on, or even if you’re quite happy sitting in the middle (like most of the uk pop), you’re asked to pick sides. That’s why it’s such a powerful tool for the populists.
So, do you or do you not think that senior elected representatives of the people have the right to make their views heard in the pages of the newspaper of record, even if those views “offend” some of the staffers on that paper?
You cannot make the case that voices in favour of the BLM-Antifa terrorists are excluded from the NYT: they are almost ubiquitous there, as they are across almost all elite media. So your long prose about excluded voices contributing to the conversation can't be about the BLM-Antifa terrorists: they are already the loudest voices. The real question is whether the elite media should be purely a propaganda sheet for your preferred views, or whether it should occasionally allow balancing views to be heard, such as Senator Cotton's - the real excluded voices.
So I ask you again, what is your opinion? Because your piece doesn't say.