Diogenes’ Middle Finger: It’s damaging to our country when people are forced from their jobs, their clubs or their associations with others because they express ideas that bother other people. I know there’s nothing in the law or the Constitution that prevents it from happening. I’m simply saying it’s a bad thing when it does happen, especially when we make it such a common event. The most damaging effect will be to make people fearful about expressing themselves at all. Fortunately, I harbor no such fear.
A healthy society has no trouble dealing with the presence of extreme or even absurd ideas as part of the public discourse, because better ideas usually rise to win the day when there’s an open and honest debate. The problem with our present society-takes-care-of-it approach to speech punishing is that the loudest and most aggressive factions get to decide which speech is acceptable. And the political left, those who deny creating this present fascist style stifling atmosphere are getting nervous now that it has turned on them.
Today, Harper’s Magazine printed a letter to be featured in a future issue that I found interesting, considering who signed it. This open letter on open debate is signed by a wide range of notable people (100) including, Gloria Steinem, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Noam Chomsky, leftist scumbag Matthew Yglesias, David Brooks, my former teacher Wynton Marsalis, J.K. Rowling, Francis Fukuyama, and Salman Rushdie among other artist, journalist and scholarly elite. It’s an interesting read, even with the ridiculous attempt to pin censorship on the right, and you may find the entire list of signatures surprising.
Fear of the mob or true concern??
Gloria Steinem has ruined more women’s lives with her feminist claptrap, ever since the sixties. I often thought about writing a book on the subject, there is plenty of material out there to prove my point.
Lots of university mucky-mucks signed the letter. From the same universities that have established speech codes, codes of conduct, safe spaces and tamping down on certain speakers who don’t express the accepted viewpoint.
Conservatives have been raising the points set out in this letter for many years now. However, now that the left is starting to eat its own in an effort to achieve ideological purity, these folks are starting to realize that they created a monster that may not be able to be tamed. JK Rowling already has her proverbial tit in the ringer for statements on sexual identity, and much of the current backlash against the left is now coming from the left.
The letter signers are people who predominately make their living in the public eye and achieve whatever fame/notoriety they have through public statements. They have a right to be scared – but not from the right.
One of the benefits of being retired. You can say anything and these pricks can’t get you fired.
@Diogenes – that is a very interesting question. Should we denigrate and even fire people who disagree with a specific point-of-view from the executives of a company? No!
Should shareholders of a company legally fight back when that does happen? Yes!
However, the shareholders are welcome to express their opinions in their resistance, or non-resistance. I can fully understand either point when I put in my vote in companies where I hold shares, or am on boards. If a company bows down to a mob, regardless of the mobs orientation, that I disagree with, I am free to leave and not do business with that company in the future (see Nike and Colin K).
I also understand that if my opinion does not have the majority support, that I have the opportunity and capability of giving up my oversight.
I have given up positions where I disagree with the majority, and I have lost material gains because of it. However, I believe that I can honestly say I am morally in a better position having done so. We will see how I am judged when I leave this mortal coil.