That doesn’t even make sense. I’m satisfied that you’re providing pretty indisputable evidence of my point about the misplaced priorities of supposed conservative defenders of free speech, so I’ll let you proceed.
Whenever someone says something like “the Girl Scouts didn’t have to Ben political back then” what they meant was “majoritarian culture was so throroughly dominant that people like me didn’t have to acknowledge the political implications of our assumptions, beliefs, statements, and values.”
Recently brought up in the conversation surrounding James Randi’s death. Yhe skeptic community refused to confront sexually aggressive behavior at its events because they didn’t want to (among other things) “bring in politics.”
Like, being misogynist is not political but pointing it out is political. Why?
It’s not even that you can’t finish the condemnation. It’s that the only thing you will even condemn is “following the bus”, making it sound like some entirely legal thing. Then you are certain, without any evidence, that the rest of what was reported “DID NOT FUCKING HAPPEN,” despite the fact we have only a 30 second video that didn’t necessarily cover everything. You deny the reports of the witnesses, which was enough to get the FBI involved. They also cancelled their next campaign event after it, indicating they were successfully intimidated.
The point is, you’re going out of your way to minimize the situation as much as possible. You cannot bring yourself to condemn all of their actions. You can’t bring yourself to even admit how bad things may have gotten.
You can complain about his tactic all you want, but you, for some reason, chose to avoid the obvious answer. You didn’t say “Assuming the reports are accurate, I do completely and unabashedly condemn these people for their actions.” It’s the obvious answer. It’s even true if you don’t believe the report. That would be the way to show that it was entirely irrelevant.
But it isn’t irrelevant. It works to establish the claim by LHOD that you don’t actually condemn intimidation in general. You were given a much worse case of intimidation that you should have been able to condemn easily, but you couldn’t bring yourself to do so.
The ultimate claim is that things only bother you for partisan reasons. You should thus do your best to establish that you can condemn people on “your side.”
Despite my previous post, I can reply to this. It’s not hard at all.
The tweet wasn’t apolitical. It was a post honoring a divisive political figure. It was honoring that political figure for the very thing that almost half the country was against–her being nominated to the Supreme Court
I also note that people have a right to disagree with things. They have a right to say that you shouldn’t have done it. That’s not “pressure.” That’s one of the bigger problems with the concept of “cancel culture”–a lot of it is actually about restricting the freedom of speech of those who disagree with something.
The actual version of what happened is this: GSUSA’s Twitter account (possibly unknowingly) made a controversial political tweet. Some people told them it was controversial, and said they should remove it. Others disagreed. GSUSA saw both sides and decided to remove to remove the tweet.
You can say that you wouldn’t have taken it down. But to make it seem like the people who didn’t like the tweet did anything wrong is silly. It’s just as silly as saying you did something wrong by disagreeing with me.
Honoring her for being a woman, (full stop) not the political position.
The Girl Scouts can do whatever they want. And independent women can use their behaviour to decide if they want their children to take part, and whether the left is really the place for someone who thinks independently.
That’s the way the market works. If the Girl Scouts piss off enough people, they will lose them. The marketplace of ideas will settle the issue over time. The Girl Scouts, unlike Twitter and Facebook, have no plausible monopoly power or ‘lock in’ of customers, and therefore are subject to the marketplace.
Since 2004 the Girl Scouts have shrunk from 2.9 million girls to about 1.7. I think most of that is just changes in technology and options for young girls tomdo other things. But there is no doubt that they are in decline. The same thing is happening to the Boy Scouts.
I think they realized there are several ways to piss people off. Tweeting something controversial and political is one way. They decided to take that down, which is another way.
Twitter and Facebook are quite easy to walk away from too.
Things change. I used to shop at Sears, drive a car that used gas, and put on nice clothes when I got on a plane.
You’re not married, are you?