Originally Posted by rhaikh
To put this another way, I think most people would agree that the essay itself is self-serving and intellectually vacant noise that would fit best on Ghomeshi's livejournal.


You are capable of criticizing speech with more speech, why does it have to go any further? Why do you and your fellow regressives feel the need to destroy the person to prevent any further speech? What do you find so threatening in bad ideas, unless your ultimate goal is to prevent your own bad ideas from being questioned?

Originally Posted by rhaikh

I think it's a completely valid opinion that the act of publishing something so inherently worthless in a widely circulated format without "editing the article more thoroughly, commissioning another piece to run alongside, or framing it with some form of editorial comment" is implicitly agreeing with the author's premise; and does, in fact, have real consequences by implicitly supporting the narrative that MeToo movement has gone too far.


First, "publishing is agreeing" is utter nonsense that doesn't survive even superficial examination. However, it is a convenient censorship argument/tool.

Second, how can you be sure that MeToo didn't go too far if questioning it verboten? Oh wait, I forgot, you can't discuss it.

Third, what are the real consequences you dog-whistling about? Are you trying to sneak in speech is violence trope?

[Linked Image]