1
1
0
I'm not a "leftist," but this article has a rock-solid point.
"It would be ironic, for instance, if people who claimed their free speech was being trampled on were actually being heard more than anybody else. It would be ironic if television hosts and podcasters who believe in “engaging in debate with the other side” never actually engaged in any debate with the other side. And it would be ironic if a journalist who believes in “facts” and “listening to critics” ignored facts and never listened to critics."
"It would be ironic, for instance, if people who claimed their free speech was being trampled on were actually being heard more than anybody else. It would be ironic if television hosts and podcasters who believe in “engaging in debate with the other side” never actually engaged in any debate with the other side. And it would be ironic if a journalist who believes in “facts” and “listening to critics” ignored facts and never listened to critics."
Pretty Loud For Being So Silenced | Current Affairs
Posted from currentaffairs.orgPosted in these groups: 
Democrats
Republicans
Democrats Republicans
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
I found quite a few ironies in this long article myself. Or, more accurately, the pot calling the kettle black. I definitely agree with Mr. Robinson that it seems to be all about the money. The media's mantra is, "If it bleeds it leads," after all, and that works both ways.
However, I've also seen actual "debates" devolve into shouting matches - the crowd full of left leaning people. If something goes against their beliefs, they close their ears. Sound familiar?
I am neither a Democrat or Republican. I have always been a registered independent. I lean more toward what conservatism is supposed to be. Even the Libertarians have a few good points. However, when I write about government over-regulation, or anything else seen as a "right" issue in other venues people come out of the woodwork to attack everything I say.
Years ago I got tired of hearing about DADT, so I decided to research the subject from SCOTUS precedent - from a constitutional standpoint. 4 different publishers called it an opinion piece in their rejection letters, and I won't get into what others said when I posted it online anyway. My research just didn't correspond to public sentiment so I had to be wrong. What I'm basically getting at is that it doesn't matter what side it comes from. Facts will be swept to the side in favor of feelings, and that's exactly how both sides want it.
However, I've also seen actual "debates" devolve into shouting matches - the crowd full of left leaning people. If something goes against their beliefs, they close their ears. Sound familiar?
I am neither a Democrat or Republican. I have always been a registered independent. I lean more toward what conservatism is supposed to be. Even the Libertarians have a few good points. However, when I write about government over-regulation, or anything else seen as a "right" issue in other venues people come out of the woodwork to attack everything I say.
Years ago I got tired of hearing about DADT, so I decided to research the subject from SCOTUS precedent - from a constitutional standpoint. 4 different publishers called it an opinion piece in their rejection letters, and I won't get into what others said when I posted it online anyway. My research just didn't correspond to public sentiment so I had to be wrong. What I'm basically getting at is that it doesn't matter what side it comes from. Facts will be swept to the side in favor of feelings, and that's exactly how both sides want it.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
There is a reason that facts are ignored. It is long time in coming home to roost, but it is finally here.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google