It's pretty bold to scorn Twitter as a censor while unironically using "Wrongthink" to describe ideas people disagree with. These people don't really grasp that they are the most internet-poisoned of us all.
Also, if one reads Weiss' letter she is complaining about speech. Clearly, in her ideal, such speech would not exist at the Times and be replaced by something more amenable to her. How is this not the "censorious" mentality she decries?
Again and again this nonsense comes up. People who paint themselves as free speech absolutists cry that *other people* need to shut up. They never reconcile this glaring contradiction.
Every single one of these people believes that certain things ought not be said. Instead of admitting that and dealing with the *actual* issue (one of values) they seriously seem to act as if no one can see the hypocrisy.
When prejudice (real or perceived) affects *her*, she can regard it as "bullying" or "intimidation," but when it affects others who then complain about it, well, they're just trying to censor someone who's speaking their mind.
There are no true free speech absolutists.
There are no true free speech absolutists.
There are a few people who are consistent in their view that the *government* should have little to no role in abridging speech, but no one actually believes there should be no *informal* curbs on speech. Not once do I see any honesty about this in the lofty free speech debate.
