Welcome Back to 1984
Okay, so I was wrong, I had one more blog in me.
No doubt some people here will hate it, others may like it.
But in the wake of the Donald Sterling case, I couldn't remain silent.
During the battle over my "Objectivist pedophile" example of using "trading value for value" to excuse any behavior, I pointed out that I believed that there are no unthinkable thoughts. To think a thought is not to advocate it. To speculate about the effects of an atomic bomb is not to advocate nuclear war. In defending Sterling's right to property, I neither advocate nor condemn his views. Nor do I apologize for defending his rights.
I have said that which the members here, in their great tolerance, found intolerable. I have not apologized because my words were not malicious. And immediately following the outrage over my single sentence, an entire article describing an atrocious sexual assault was posted. So obviously the subject was not acceptable, just the idea I suggested.
Perhaps this is why I feel compelled to defend Sterling's rights. All I know is, it is a very, very short road from persecuting people for saying things you don't like, to controlling what everybody is allowed to say, or even think. History shows that it's a very, very short road.
No doubt some people here will hate it, others may like it.
But in the wake of the Donald Sterling case, I couldn't remain silent.
During the battle over my "Objectivist pedophile" example of using "trading value for value" to excuse any behavior, I pointed out that I believed that there are no unthinkable thoughts. To think a thought is not to advocate it. To speculate about the effects of an atomic bomb is not to advocate nuclear war. In defending Sterling's right to property, I neither advocate nor condemn his views. Nor do I apologize for defending his rights.
I have said that which the members here, in their great tolerance, found intolerable. I have not apologized because my words were not malicious. And immediately following the outrage over my single sentence, an entire article describing an atrocious sexual assault was posted. So obviously the subject was not acceptable, just the idea I suggested.
Perhaps this is why I feel compelled to defend Sterling's rights. All I know is, it is a very, very short road from persecuting people for saying things you don't like, to controlling what everybody is allowed to say, or even think. History shows that it's a very, very short road.
Was what he said abhorrent? Clearly. Was it so abhorrent that those that heard it for a considerable length of time compelled to do anything? Clearly not.