Are you seriously saying that questioning a group of people’s (whom have committed no heinous crimes) right to exist in “the paper of record” is appropriate?
We'll find out, if he wants to respond to what I wrote above.
Paul's comments are supportive of the NYT's reaction to the over-the-top wokeness attack on its coverage of transgender issues and the ill-informed view of some staff members that criticism of the editorial policies are protected speech under the NLRA.
So far as I know, my earlier comment is correct, that you haven't even explained what the "over-the-top wokeness" is. How can you support the "reaction" to something you haven't read for yourself?
Links to primary sources are provided within the links that I provided.
Whether they are or not, you could have read them, instead of relying on second-hand descriptions - because your BOLD AND CAPS "annotations" don't evidence that you did read them, in particular the actual criticisms by the signatories to the open letter.
"Over-the-top wokeness" is manifested in the letter I linked from GLAAD as expressed in, but not limited to, its following demands for censorship at the NY Times -- which the NY Times correctly says are based on misrepresentations of NY Times coverage.
The demand that effectively calls questioning science a form of heresy should be pointed out as a particularly pernicious manifestation of how over-the-top wokeness seeks to use "shame" to silence discussion.
Stop the anti-trans narratives immediately. Stop platforming anti-trans activists. Stop presenting anti-trans extremists as average Americans without an agenda. Stop questioning trans people's right to exist and access medical care. Stop questioning best practice medical care. Stop questioning science that is SETTLED.
Many years ago Judge Brandeis enshrined the principle that the solution to bad speech is not censorship but more speech. That's the principle that Elon Musk follows in general and in the specific case of Greta Thunberg
And rejects it in the specific case of Ron DeSantis.
I'd argue that the latter case -- which involves supporting someone with real political power in the physcal world using the force of the state to suppress speech and action he disagrees with -- far outweighs whatever free speech pose he's adopting online.
Musk's "support" for DeSantis is a bit exaggerated.
"Asked by a user if he would support DeSantis for president, Musk responded: “Yes.”
That seems pretty straightforward. And equally straightforward, anyone who cared about free speech even half as much as you believe Musk cares about climate change could tell the only correct answer to such a question is "no."
You seem to be so perturbed that I'm criticizing the merits of whatis being advocated -- not the advocacy itself -- that you feel compelled to distort what I've been saying.
I'm not perturbed. I just think it's crazy that you are conflating advocacy with "censorship".
People are free to make any request or demand of a newspaper to stop writing stories in a particular way. And that newspaper can choose to ignore those demands, or make changes if they think the complaints have merit.
"Over-the-top wokeness" is manifested in the letter I linked from GLAAD as expressed in, but not limited to, its following demands for censorship at the NY Times -- which the NY Times correctly says are based on misrepresentations of NY Times coverage.
The demand that effectively calls questioning science a form of heresy should be pointed out as a particularly pernicious manifestation of how over-the-top wokeness seeks to use "shame" to silence discussion.
Stop the anti-trans narratives immediately. Stop platforming anti-trans activists. Stop presenting anti-trans extremists as average Americans without an agenda. Stop questioning trans people's right to exist and access medical care. Stop questioning best practice medical care. Stop questioning science that is SETTLED.
You're attacking the criticism without showing that you understand what they are criticizing.
If someone was saying, "Stop questioning the settled science that theories of white people being superior to nonwhite people are wrong", you wouldn't say that was "over-the-top wokeness".
So, if you think you have an honest argument, first go back and read the actual "open letter" that started this, and which you claim is the "wokeness" you criticize. Don't read about it, or a summary of it, or just that excerpt you reprinted.
The science that is allegedly "settled" (sic) refers to current "medically approved best practices for gender-affirming healthcare," especially the minimum age for which irreversible interventions are indicated for minors.
In addition to the fact that science is never "settled," what constitutes "best practices" for gender dysphoria is by no means "settled" in the medical field, as current shifts toward raising minimum ages and other changes in best-practices are trending in European countries.
To suggest that the NY Times, or anyone else, should refrain from discussing these developments or any other aspects of "gender-affirming treatment," is antithetical to scientific inquiry and determining best-practices. And thus contrary to the interests of children experiencing gender dysphoria.
And there's also the public's right and need to know.
But the over-the-top wokeness activists seek to shame well-meaning people into conformity by falsely alleging that the science is "settled" and shaming them into thinking that if they ask questions they are "anti-transgender",
You seem to be so perturbed that I'm criticizing the merits of whatis being advocated -- not the advocacy itself -- that you feel compelled to distort what I've been saying.
I'm not perturbed. I just think it's crazy that you are conflating advocacy with "censorship".
People are free to make any request or demand of a newspaper to stop writing stories in a particular way. And that newspaper can choose to ignore those demands, or make changes if they think the complaints have merit.
The advocates are advocating censorship. They have the right to advocate that. And I have the right to criticize that. No conflation.
Are you seriously saying that questioning a group of people’s (whom have committed no heinous crimes) right to exist in “the paper of record” is appropriate?
We'll find out, if he wants to respond to what I wrote above.
Show us the NYT reporting that questioned the right to exist of "a group of people".
Are you seriously saying that questioning a group of people’s (whom have committed no heinous crimes) right to exist in “the paper of record” is appropriate?
We'll find out, if he wants to respond to what I wrote above.
Show us the NYT reporting that questioned the right to exist of "a group of people".
Paul, your responses show that you didn't read the letter. There's no point in engaging with your "arguments", or entertaining your insults of the signatories, if you're going to refuse to inform yourself about the actual open letter.
You seem to be so perturbed that I'm criticizing the merits of whatis being advocated -- not the advocacy itself -- that you feel compelled to distort what I've been saying.
I'm not perturbed. I just think it's crazy that you are conflating advocacy with "censorship".
People are free to make any request or demand of a newspaper to stop writing stories in a particular way. And that newspaper can choose to ignore those demands, or make changes if they think the complaints have merit.
The advocates are advocating censorship. They have the right to advocate that. And I have the right to criticize that. No conflation.
You have a unique idea of what constitutes "censorship."
If someone was saying, "Stop questioning the settled science that theories of white people being superior to nonwhite people are wrong", you wouldn't say that was "over-the-top wokeness".
no surprise from someone who throws around the terms "woke" and "cancel culture" so blithely.
the weird thing is that by Paul's own definition he's trying to "censor" GLAAD. He isn't posing an argument against their claims. Just objecting to the fact that they are making the claims.
Many years ago Judge Brandeis enshrined the principle that the solution to bad speech is not censorship but more speech.
Not just more speech, but also time: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Justice Brandeis wrote this, as you said, many years ago — in 1927, less than a decade after the first radio broadcast, and long before “evil” could go viral on Twitter.
the weird thing is that by Paul's own definition he's trying to "censor" GLAAD. He isn't posing an argument against their claims. Just objecting to the fact that they are making the claims.
To the question of who is censoring whom, Paul was more on point earlier when he wrote, “Some journalists claiming NLRA protects them from company censorship.” The idea is that a newspaper is censoring its employees when it bars them from signing advocacy letters or petitions.
the weird thing is that by Paul's own definition he's trying to "censor" GLAAD. He isn't posing an argument against their claims. Just objecting to the fact that they are making the claims.
To the question of who is censoring whom, Paul was more on point earlier when he wrote, “Some journalists claiming NLRA protects them from company censorship.” The idea is that a newspaper is censoring its employees when it bars them from signing advocacy letters or petitions.
yes. That's a point I can agree with. In order to "censor" someone, there has to be some sort of power over them. How can GLAAD censor any news org if that org can just tell them pound sand.
I have zero idea what this thread is about. Seems like every post by certain people goes on a different tangent every other day. I'm lurking and reading - just not learning much.
I have zero idea what this thread is about. Seems like every post by certain people goes on a different tangent every other day. I'm lurking and reading - just not learning much.
It's about someone gathering together the remaining scraps of his reputation and lighting them on fire.
I have zero idea what this thread is about. Seems like every post by certain people goes on a different tangent every other day. I'm lurking and reading - just not learning much.
It's about completely moving the discussion off Elon Musk and his management of Twitter
Are you seriously saying that questioning a group of people’s (whom have committed no heinous crimes) right to exist in “the paper of record” is appropriate?
We'll find out, if he wants to respond to what I wrote above.
Show us the NYT reporting that questioned the right to exist of "a group of people".
Do you even read what you post and what you post about? Do you have even the slightest sense how doing simple things like not deadnaming or misgendering trans people impacts their mental health (and the converse)? When the NYT provides a platform for anti-trans activity, it is actively harming trans people and questions their right to exist as trans people.
the weird thing is that by Paul's own definition he's trying to "censor" GLAAD. He isn't posing an argument against their claims. Just objecting to the fact that they are making the claims.
To the question of who is censoring whom, Paul was more on point earlier when he wrote, “Some journalists claiming NLRA protects them from company censorship.” The idea is that a newspaper is censoring its employees when it bars them from signing advocacy letters or petitions.
yes. That's a point I can agree with. In order to "censor" someone, there has to be some sort of power over them. How can GLAAD censor any news org if that org can just tell them pound sand.
I never said that GLAAD could censor the NY Times. I said that GLAAD is "advocating censorship".
What I said:
"The advocates are advocating censorship. They have the right to advocate that. And I have the right to criticize that. No conflation."
What the advocates (GLAAD) said:
"Stop questioning best practice medical care. Stop questioning science that is SETTLED."
Are you seriously saying that questioning a group of people’s (whom have committed no heinous crimes) right to exist in “the paper of record” is appropriate?
We'll find out, if he wants to respond to what I wrote above.
Show us the NYT reporting that questioned the right to exist of "a group of people".
Do you even read what you post and what you post about? Do you have even the slightest sense how doing simple things like not deadnaming or misgendering trans people impacts their mental health (and the converse)? When the NYT provides a platform for anti-trans activity, it is actively harming trans people and questions their right to exist as trans people.
Show us an example where the NYT questioned the right to exist of "a group of people".
I have zero idea what this thread is about. Seems like every post by certain people goes on a different tangent every other day. I'm lurking and reading - just not learning much.
It's about completely moving the discussion off Elon Musk and his management of Twitter
Mission Accomplished
Funny thing, there haven't been any posts here lately by the haters on how Twitter has descended into a hellscape. There's no censorship on Twitter of GLAAD and its supporters as far as I can see. They're busy on Twitter as the digital Town Square to get their views across. Just what Elon wants.
Not sure what they're doing on Mastadon. Anybody know?
I have zero idea what this thread is about. Seems like every post by certain people goes on a different tangent every other day. I'm lurking and reading - just not learning much.
It's about someone gathering together the remaining scraps of his reputation and lighting them on fire.
Many years ago Judge Brandeis enshrined the principle that the solution to bad speech is not censorship but more speech.
Not just more speech, but also time: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Justice Brandeis wrote this, as you said, many years ago — in 1927, less than a decade after the first radio broadcast, and long before “evil” could go viral on Twitter.
Are you suggesting there isn't enough time to rebut the Babylon Bee's tweets?
Edited to Add: And you need to be a little more forthcoming about what was meant by "evil" in the decision, and compare that with the Babylon Bee.
I have zero idea what this thread is about. Seems like every post by certain people goes on a different tangent every other day. I'm lurking and reading - just not learning much.
Do a Dave Schmidt experiment and when reading the thread replace "Paul" with "Dave" and you'll have no trouble understanding -- and I think agreeing -- with my posts.
We'll find out, if he wants to respond to what I wrote above.