'Parkland’s secular saints shouldn’t be immune to criticism'

[Nearly Sane]

I agree with the headline but the article takes being a contrarian to its logical conclusion of just writing antagonistically and misrepresenting to avoid argument


https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/04/parklands-secular-saints-shouldnt-be-immune-to-criticism/

[jeremyp]

I agree with the headline but the article takes being a contrarian to its logical conclusion of just writing antagonistically and misrepresenting to avoid argument


https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/04/parklands-secular-saints-shouldnt-be-immune-to-criticism/

You think the presenter who accused him of being whiney for complaining just because he got four rejections should lose her job?

There's a deeply worrying trend here. People are putting far too much emphasis on what mobs on social media say. In this case, I think the corporate sponsors and Fox TV are caving far too easily. This guy is obviously an arsehole. That's a real shame because his message on gun control is important and it might get overshadowed.

[Nearly Sane]

You think the presenter who accused him of being whiney for complaining just because he got four rejections should lose her job?

There's a deeply worrying trend here. People are putting far too much emphasis on what mobs on social media say. In this case, I think the corporate sponsors and Fox TV are caving far too easily. This guy is obviously an arsehole. That's a real shame because his message on gun control is important and it might get overshadowed.

No, I think that I don't take a contrarian such as O'Neil as reporting honestly, and I might think that someone who just nearly got killed might disagree with me about how he expresses himself, and I might think that given Fox as a major news network that has spawned lies continually might need to think about whether they should continue to do that. I might think that suddenly portraying economic power as bad when it has been the mantra of the NRA is problematic.


ETA the quote from him about rejections was this



"It's been kind of annoying having to deal with that and everything else that's been going on but at this point, you know, we're changing the world," he said.

There isn't anything linking that to the shooting, but Ingraham used it as an ad hom.

[Rhiannon]

I’d like to think that a tv presenter could hold back from taking the piss out of a teenager at the best of times, let alone one who has just survived a mass shooting.

[jeremyp]

No, I think that I don't take a contrarian such as O'Neil as reporting honestly, and I might think that someone who just nearly got killed might disagree with me about how he expresses himself

But the remarks criticising him were not on the subject of gun control that has brought him to prominence.

and I might think that given Fox as a major news network that gas spawned lies continually might need to think about whether they should continue to do that.

I certainly agree with that, but he started his Twitter campaign over the opinion of a TV presenter, not over facts misrepresented.

I might think that suddenly portraying economic power as bad when it has been the mantra of the NRA is problematic.

Using economic power to silence dissent is OK if it is being done for a cause with which you agree but not otherwise?

[jeremyp]

I’d like to think that a tv presenter could hold back from taking the piss out of a teenager at the best of times, let alone one who has just survived a mass shooting.

I'd like two think somebody campaigning on an important subject could resist the temptation of using his platform founded on a tragedy to use it to try to get a woman fired.

Clearly I was wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

But the remarks criticising him were not on the subject of gun control that has brought him to prominence.
I certainly agree with that, but he started his Twitter campaign over the opinion of a TV presenter, not over facts misrepresented.
Using economic power to silence dissent is OK if it is being done for a cause with which you agree but not otherwise?

They were made at the time of his talking about gun control as an aside and were used by Ingraham and Fox as an ad hom to detract from his case.


Are you saying no boycotts are correct?

[Nearly Sane]

I'd like two think somebody campaigning on an important subject could resist the temptation of using his platform founded on a tragedy to use it to try to get a woman fired.

Clearly I was wrong.

Or maybe wanted to stop as major news network and its employee using an ad hom to detract from the argument?