zlacker

> resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting.

I get it. This is aimed at left-wing people who think their side can do no evil and thus proceed to censor any disagreement. But it's still funny to me that this whole thing needs to be preceded with 'the right is bad, but believe it or not, people on the left might do some bad things too', as if any side has a monopoly on virtue and goodness.

>>insick+(OP)
What would be the left-wing analogy to President Trump rallying against the attacks on Confederate symbols (e.g. flag ban at NASCAR, taking down of statues) and using it as a purported example of liberal hypocrisy regarding tolerance and freedom of speech?

edit: This is a genuine question, not whataboutism. The letter is obviously very keyed to the current situation, rather than just a broad defense of free expression. Many of the signatories are presumably worried that backlash to perceived unchecked movements on the left will lead to the Trump administration retaining power. The parent commenter suggests that this kind of letter would be written in a vacuum, and I disagree.

>>insick+(OP)
This is a "let a hundred flowers bloom" campaign coming directly from elite media. Oldest trick in the book - be careful not to fall for it.

>>insick+(OP)
It is being exploited though. It's literally part of the strategy:

"The longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the Left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats." -Steve Bannon

>>Reedx+d2
And yet, Biden was a 'tough on crime' guy back in the 1980s and 1990s - his stances have contributed significantly to the institutional racism problem we all face today. Trump has a way better record on criminal justice reform. Don't fall for the hype. E.g. see https://www.politico.com/interactives/2020/justice-reform-bi...

>>zozbot+q3
> Trump has a way better record on criminal justice reform.

Yeah. For his friends.

>>danso+31
It’s a good question.

Maybe a Dem POTUS rallying against cops as they try to stop protestors from confiscating and destroying various means of production?

>>insick+(OP)
Would you at least entertain the possibility that one of the sides could, at the moment, be a bit worse than the other?

>>gamesw+Q5
Entertain? Sure. But you're also talking about "mainstream media". If we had an unbiased media outlet making this accusation, I think it might make sense. But any person center or right-of-center makes no bones about the fact that all of the major media outlets are left and getting "more lefter" all the time.

I'm not aware of anyone on the right advocating that words are acts of violence. It might be possible, but I _know_ it comes from the left.

That said, that conservatives don't speak up more about this type of stuff is concerning. They are, after all, supposed to be about the business of "conserving" things.

That said, that they even published this letter is at least a breath of fresh air. Regardless of the view, I'm glad that there is a call to examine this.

>>Reedx+d2
Sure, but it was Bannon and Trump who brought that sort of thing into electoral politics. Barack Obama was constantly telling college students and "cancel culture" that they'd gone too far and needed more civic spirit and respect for others' liberties.

>>aklemm+h5
Maybe a closer variant would be a Democratic POTUS trying to argue that conservatives unabashed support for police justifies a greater expansion of state policing powers. But it doesn't quite feel right as an analogy because supporting police powers has generally been the status quo no matter the prevailing party. Whereas the leftist purported push to censor or bully speech doesn't feel anywhere near an entrenched status quo, even if you really think Twitter is real life.

>>eli_go+Ob
Do you have examples? The only one I'm aware of is this talk in 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM

That was good, but too late. It seemed like he mostly got "Ok, boomer" responses from his target.

>>gamesw+Q5
That wasn't the question. If cancer is the deadliest disease, that doesn't mean we can't talk about the obesity epidemic(or vice versa depending on the actual stats, I'm just making a general point).

Imagine if, every time someone wanted to talk about helping end the obesity epidemic, many other people chimed in about how dare you talk about obesity when cancer still exists. And the only way you could make a point about obesity is to put a disclaimer that cancer is totally worse than obesity.

>>gamesw+Q5
One of these sides and the problem they represent just grew a huge amount in the last month. If it continues to grow at this rate, it will become the number one problem very shortly, and the time to speak out is now.

>>insick+(OP)
I agree that it looks funny here. But I think it's more of a strategic thing: it reveals the target audience they're addressing, and trying to show "hey, we're one of you" before saying anything more controversial that follows (that it's at all controversial is more sad than funny however).

>>Reedx+xi
>That was good, but too late. It seemed like he mostly got "Ok, boomer" responses from his target.

Well, Obama was a President, not a cult leader. I'm not sure he ever really believed his voters would obey him about anything.

Nonetheless, he was at least mentioning it negatively at least as far back as 2015. https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/09/president-obama-on...