More general point/question. I assume that Hamid, Yglesias et al are talking generally abt Cotton but also the recent moves by Twitter to flag Trump tweets. Snapchat just did the semi-equivalent of removing Trump's blue check mark. Whether this is PC runamok or not, there's a ...
2/ more general issue. It is a given that while people may have constitutional free speech private venues, publications, platforms consider some views outside the realm of acceptable discourse and police that privately. What I think we have here in recent days ...
3/ is the President and now a sitting US Senator doing and saying things that by most standards have historically qualified as beyond the pale - statements that explicitly advocate or glorify violence against civilians. In Cotton's case he is very explicitly advocating ...
4/ using not only the military but military rules of engagement in US cities. To me, that's nuts and not remotely justified let alone legal in the present circumstances. The heart of the issue is that you can't really say in the same way that these views or this ...
5/ advocacy is outside the mainstream or outside the realm of acceptable discourse when the President of the United States and a top US senator are making these statements. By definition they can't be outside the realm of real political discourse if the head of state ...
6/ is proposing them as his positions. Same point applies to a degree with Cotton. My point here is not that the Times shld have published Cotton's piece. But the contours of political discourse are being pried open by those who can do so by the simple fact that ...
7/ have political power. And that simply flummoxes the normal rules and norms that private entities, publications, even platforms apply.
