I want you to know that, even if I do wind up disagreeing with the end result of your ruminations, I support you saying what you think, and believing what you believe. I think your own thoughts trouble you a bit. You should be able to be honest not only in your words, but with yourself. If others disagree with it, well, that's not really your problem. You are entitled to your opinion, and you should state it clearly. I want you to look at your positions, and to determine what you believe. What I want you to do is confront it, logically. Put differently, this is a much more quiescent form of the cognitive dissonance that so many of our WS trolls exhibit with every one of their logically malformed posts. While I don't support the WS folks in any way - I stated my position above, that they're terrorists who've forfeited their seat at the table - I think that you're using verbal judo to dance around what you think, because your current ideas are at odds with what you would normally believe. S73v3r, even if it earns you "some" downvotes, I think you should be clear about what you're arguing, so that it can't be mistaken. It's also valid to say, "The reason we shouldn't restrict one train of thought, is because then restricting trains of thought becomes a valid solution to the problem of dealing with trains of thought we disagree with." There's a strong point to saying, "No, no censorship - if we drive them back underground, not only will they resurface, it does nothing to solve the problem which is causing their activities." That's a valid position. Is it the correct answer to this problem? That's very much a point of discussion. I think their views not only require discussion, but their access to the so-called public square needs to be curtailed due to their propensity for physical violence (which, is quite well-documented.) This can be called 'censorship', and I would even agree that it is. I think s73v3r may have a position very similar to mine that the American White Supremacist movement is a terrorist organization, and thus has no place in the public conversation - the public conversation is stated in words, not waged with weapons. Of course, the best I can do is interpret what I think they want to say, which I would undoubtedly get wrong, and it would be putting words in their mouth. While I won't go so far as to claim that s73v3r is a liar or crazy, I will say that I think they're having a hard time making their point in an easily understood way.
0 kommentar(er)
