A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

[Keith Davis]

If anyone is interested, Thomas Chatterton Williams is on the Useful Idiots
podcast with Matt Taibbi and
Katie Halper this weekend.

https://youtu.be/MijFtGQYowg

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:18 PM Gary Webb <gwebb8686 at gmail.com> wrote:

> It’s probably because nobody wants Ronan Farrow coming after them...
>
> But they’re powerful people, those whom were mentioned, and they can
> shield themselves from harm... the ugly side is when these online mobs take
> out normal people, those that can’t shield themselves with money and
> power....and its not a Right or Left thing, they all do it... so maybe
> Weiss should have said no more doxing Internet anons to enable violence
> against them... just a universal disavowing of all political violence...
> but no, that’s the game they all play now...
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jul 17, 2020, at 1:20 PM, Laura Kelber <laurakelber at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > And the censorship comes not from these vitriolic stone-throwers but
> from
> > the bottom-line capitalists who decide that publishing or producing work
> > from Rowling or anyone else hapless enough to be attacked is too
> > financially risky. Woody Allen's latest movie streams in assorted places
> in
> > Europe and Asia but no one dares show it in the democratic USA.
> >
> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 7:46 AM Thomas Eckhardt <
> thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de>
> >> wrote:
> >> I am certainly not going to wade into the topic either...
> >>>> Am 17.07.2020 um 11:51 schrieb John Bailey:
> >>>> I'm not attacking or defending Rowling, or wading into the topic she
> >> waded into.
> >>> But the angry tweets referred to in Thomas' article aren't censorship.
> >> I am not saying they are. They are misogynist insults, however, hate
> >> speech and cyber bullying. Of course, the tweets have been selected for
> >> maximum effect, but still.
> >>> That's what democratic 'open debate' looks like.
> >> No. This is hate speech, not debate. It should not be censored but it
> >> should certainly also not be treated as a legitimate contribution to
> >> reasonable debate.
> >>> If you say something
> >>> that some people find hateful, some of them might respond in ways that
> >>> you don't like.
> >> Yes.
> >>> If you're truly committed to open debate you'll engage
> >>> in dialogue with these foul dissenters.
> >> You believe a woman should engage in dialogue with people calling her a
> >> c*nt, inviting her to choke on their d*cks and publicly expressing their
> >> wish to slap her around, smack her up and punch her in the head? And if
> >> she doesn't, she is not committed to "open debate"? Sorry, but this is
> >> ridiculous.
> >>> Or you can just demonise them. That's a tactic.
> >> The people who wrote these tweets are not demons but idiots who are
> >> ideologically blindsided to a degree that makes me almost feel sorry for
> >> them.
> >> --
> >> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > --
> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>


-- 
www.keithdavismusic.com