There is no liberal named Tanya Cohen. Tanya Cohen was made up by Joshua Goldberg. She doesn’t live inside millions of liberals. She lives inside a conservative’s imagination of what liberals are like.
Now to address the OP.
Joshua Goldberg is still a fraud. He lied about Tanya Cohen being a real person. Being a metaphor for the beliefs of some liberals doesn’t change this. He created her to be a liberal that everyone would disagree with–including the vast, vast majority of liberals. It was obviously a “smear campaign,” even if it were a valid metaphor.
She was offensive because she was going against everything America stands for. We all think freedom of speech is important. No one wants to get rid of it. You cannot have a democracy if one side can say “you cannot disagree with me.”
Yes, progressives would like to convince everyone to be progressive. But conservatives would like to convince everyone to be conservative. Yes, progressives are often proponents of so-called “political correctness,” but they just mean “don’t be a jerk and offend people when you don’t have to.” It doesn’t mean anything about keeping conservatives from voicing their ideas.
And yes, both sides may vehemently disagree with you. They may make you feel bad for saying what you said. But that’s still not censorship. That is freedom of speech in action. We have the freedom to disagree with you.
As I hope you can see, saying you believe that millions of progressives actually believe what “Tanya Cohen” believes is saying that millions of progressives wnat to be tyrants. It is calling them evil.
Of course that is going to be insulting.
A better OP would be: “Do you think there are any progressives out there that would agree with Tonya Cohen?” And your choices could be none, maybe a few on the fringe, a small insignificant minority, a small but significant minority, etc. And it would be better if you split it between conservatives and liberals, as there may be disagreement. (So something like “I’m conservative, but I think few liberals actually think this way.” and “I’m liberal, but I think this is a small but significant minority of progressives.”)
At the heart of this is the OPs conservative hypocritical stance that liberals are anti-free speech and conservatives are the protectors of it. There are plenty of people who use liberal causes to promote censorship, and stupid liberals who fall for it, but those promoters are not liberal or progressive in any way. Censorship is and always has been a conservative anti-freedom principle. It’s only in reason years that the conservative movement has embraced it out of a paranoid fear of having their anti-freedom rhetoric shut down. Defending free speech is like buying indulgences from the Pope for conservatives. They’ll spend their political careers destroying the ability of government to protect the rights of the people and then toss out a token defense of free speech.
Notice the topic of this OP, it is a defense of fraud based on using the concept of free speech to convert lies to truth. That is one true conservative principle.
Cohen, huh?
I don’t think Goldbergs are big into anti-semitism.
Isn’t Joshua Goldberg actually a dangerous liar that tried to incite serious violence and got arrested for it in another fraudulent identity case where he distributed bomb making info? Calling him an advocate of Free Speech is probably insulting to those that actually defend Free Speech.
They’re mostly a bunch of Rubes.
That’s the one. Goldberg also “defended free speech” by impersonating real people he disagreed with online or claiming to be affiliated with organizations he disagreed with (like Amnesty International) and posting inflammatory content.
Somehow it doesn’t surprise me that the OP admires this loathsome troll.
I didn’t vote since none of the options fit.
I’d never heard of “Tanya Cohen.” Having looked “her” up, I think I probably would have guessed she was a fictional character made up by a conservative satirist, since she was just a little TOO stupid and a little too fascistic to be real… though these days, reality and satire are uncomfortably similar sometimes.
Definitely – many of my views are unacceptable in modern society.
I do not know. He sounds more like a young genius. Of course his illegal activities were wrong, but Tanya Cohen account was a good satire.
I dunno; I’ve always had the sense that the purpose of satire is to use outrageously ludicrous propositions to reveal a fundamental truth about the reality of the world we live in.
And that “good” satire does this well.
Mr. Goldberg’s efforts don’t seem to accomplish this on any level whatsoever.
Who?
CCitizen do you find this type of feedback helpful? Both of my children have Asperger’s. It occurred to me as I read BigT’s responses that perhaps you were sincere and might find more detailed input welcome. Please let me know.
Definitely – it is helpful for me in order to fit into the society. At age 20 when I had much more energy I chose not to fit into the society.
Nevertheless, I never broke the law – just social norms which I considered purposeless.
Cyber Citizen 1985 would respond to any attempt to correct his behavior very rudely. At 45 I have no energy, but an Asperger’s teenager may strongly stand for their Self against Society’s attempt to change them.
First I am not sure he is a fraud. I would call him a young genius who has overstepped the bounds of the law. Tanya Cohen is a fictional character like the Big Brother, Simon Legree, Darth Vader, etc.
In reality many people in USA would want to curb Free Speech to some degree – like pressuring the media not to publish things they consider offensive.
Creating a book or a movie presented as fiction ≠ creating something fictional and presenting it as fact.
No one believes in completely unfettered free speech. The limits may be yelling fire in a movie theater, calling in a false bomb threat, threatening murder, or hate speech, or otherwise. The debate is always where to draw a line, not that a line needs be drawn.
Plus many conflate free speech being exercised against the speech made by others as being against free speech. That is very confused thinking. There is much speech that I believe others should have but that I think they are idiots and hateful for expressing and my exercising my free speech stating that (and voting with my wallet as appropriate) is covered just as well. Telling people they should shut the fuck up is free speech. Outlawing their ability to ignore you is not.
I do not see the “progressives” that are the target of that “satire” as trying to outlaw the speech of others but as exercising their own free speech, expressing what jerks and assholes some others are for choosing the speech they do. Fair game that.
Maybe he’s a genius … I wouldn’t know as I just ignore jerks the best I can. My sense is that he is an idiot and while he is free to speak I am free to ignore.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
Creating a book or a movie presented as fiction ≠ creating something fictional and presenting it as fact.
[/QUOTE]
Was War of The Worlds presented as a real news show?
[QUOTE=DSeid]
Plus many conflate free speech being exercised against the speech made by others as being against free speech. That is very confused thinking. There is much speech that I believe others should have but that I think they are idiots and hateful for expressing and my exercising my free speech stating that (and voting with my wallet as appropriate) is covered just as well. Telling people they should shut the fuck up is free speech.
[/QUOTE]
I guess so. Unless the counter speech becomes harassment – like threats, doxing, stalking.
It’s surprising how many people can be taken in by trolls, even when they’re really stupid and obvious ones.