I just
read this piece from 93's favorite go-to citation spot, Vox.
When you read the piece, this publication seemingly (actually not seemingly, explicitly) calls on the MSM to ban op-eds by pro-Trumpers. At the same time the author describes Trump and any of his supporters as a “racist authoritarian movement”. Because of that -- no more balanced reporting; only note Republican evil; then again. Specifically targeted, mentioned, and highlighted is Tom Cotton's recent op-ed in the NY Times.
Let's take this journalist at his word, and assume all the bad indictments. He notes that "[The Times management] fashion themselves old-school, small-l liberals, devoted to an open marketplace of ideas where a range of differing views can be heard." That is, the traditional view of classical liberalism.
But, he then makes a plea to abandon any pretense of such classic liberalism since Trump and all such are “racist authoritarians”, the rules of discourse should pay zero heed to such ideals of classic liberalism. In his view, fascists don’t get rights. They arent worthy of rights.
Seemingly it is progressives that have forsaken classical liberalism. They wholeheartedly embrace identitarian socialistic politics. It is the progressive campus administrators who short shrift the ideals of both classical liberalism and the ideals of their institutions by allowing violent activities and thuglike behavior to suppress speakers -- select speakers who have a message that differ from these administrators and the philosophies they hold. Progressives seemingly have distorted the concept of liberalism itself into a justification for censorship.
And when I say progressives, I mean the meat of the Democratic party with this.
Seemingly the modern Left has completely forsaken the ideas and principles of liberalism, and neo-liberalism. In their absence they now tightly cling to the replacement ideals of identity politics and apparently the tag along cousin of the concept that argument by simply alleging bigotry is valid.
I guess it is telling that I would unashamedly say that I have zero issue with very illiberal stances, like the one referenced in the mouthpiece Vox above, not being struck from the pages of discourse. In fact, I highly encourage *all* POV to have such stature. Yet, those supposed guardians of the truth actually are seemingly copacetic with that very highly illiberal stance.
93, Lad -- read the link above. I would like to hear your takes on it. Disturbing? Honestly, I dont expect much from 93, as most of what comes down the pike from him is regurgitated talking points, and when a cogent response is offered up he scurries from anything more than a surface dive like the possums that run away from my outdoor garage light.
Perhaps after reading it you might understand the references to Maoism and Cultural Revolution a bit more clearly.
