Tanya Cohen insisted that non – progressive speech should be banned. Many conservatives did not like these ideas until they realized that the author of the account was Joshua Ryne Goldberg. Joshua Goldberg is a Conservative advocate of Free Speech.
Many liberals would claim that the Tanya Cohen character never existed and Joshua Goldberg is a fraud. In my opinion, this is not exactly true. Tanya Cohen is not a lonely radical – she lives inside millions of liberals. Is it true?
not worth the warning.
This should have its own acronym for situations like this: NWTW. He does seem to be working hard on earning his own Pit thread.
How?
Doesn’t have the same ring to it as “Who is John Galt”.
Also a fictional character
Is fictional the same as non – real?
Doesn’t it strike you that your poll is tremendously insulting?
Why? Do most liberals agree with ideas presented under Tanya Cohen’s name?
Be nice. The OP has Depression and Autism.
Thank you – many great talents had/have Aspergers.
Ooooh, I wish this was the Pit.
Although I did love Dagny Taggart’s answer, early in the novel: “We are!”
No, it’s insulting because your OP states you believe that they do.
I apologize to any progressive who believes in Free Speech.
What proportion of progressives, in your estimation, would this apology be directed towards?
I do not know. I have not seen any polls.
That’s why I said “in your estimation”. It was clear from your OP that you don’t really think progressives believe in true free speech. So then, when you later ‘apologized’ to “any progressives who believe in free speech”, it made you sound rather disingenuous.
[A little bit of Devil’s Advocate here]
Does it occur to all the respondents in this thread who are trashing the OP and his apparent views, that you are proving his thesis?
[/A little bit of Devil’s Advocate here]
You now know he has a mental disability, yet you still want to attack and hurt him rather than even try to explain the issue. You make me wish this was in the Pit, too.
I don’t like the tone Ambivalid is taking (especially the first post that sounds sarcastic), but at least he’s trying to help him see the issue. (And the tone is completely lost on CCitizen, anyways.)
CCitizen: I’ll get into your OP in a subsequenc post. But I want to explain why Rick Kitchen in upset. (And, no, it’s not a perfect explanation. It’s hard to put it all into words.)
While it is true that many people on the autism spectrum have contributed to the array of human knowledge, your comment came off as you saying you think people with Asperger’s are better than neurotypical people. That comes off as arrogance, an undesirable trait.
Furthermore, it came as a reply to a post where Ambivalid was telling people to be nice to you because you didn’t realize what you said was insulting. Yet your reply implies that you think he was agreeing with you.
Until you learn the nuances, here’s some advice: always be ready to apologize for offending people, and don’t try to argue that what you said shouldn’t be offensive. And don’t go around talking about how smart people with Asperger’s are. It will come off as you talking about smart you are–and thus will sound arrogant.
Not at all. Part of free speech is facing criticism for what you say. That’s other people with opposing viewpoints exercising the same free speech you have.