A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

[Mark Kohut]

If anyone is also interested, Thomas chatterton Williams wrote the new intro to Murray’s Omni-Americans. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 18, 2020, at 3:35 PM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l