EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 81,215
- 56,703
- 2,645
Sandmann was a 16 year old being harassed by a liberal crazy. He thought if he smiled the act would be non threatening and defuse a volatile situation. He didn't get up in front of television cameras voluntarily or in a belief his career would be advanced. He didn't agree to be "interviewed". He was victimized from the very beginning.It isn’t about controlling the thoughts and ideas of others. Where did you derive that from?
You talked about the Cardinal Virtues. What Vance chose to do certainly seems to fly in the face of those. Why defend it? Yes. He can do. No. It is not illegal. So defending his use of it and supporting his defense of that use while saying people shouldn’t be criticizing it.
Are you defending because he is a rightist and the left is criticizing it? Unlike Sandmann? Two very similar things from an ethical perspective but you don’t seem to treat them that way.
How is condemning it censorship? How is calling Vance to task for it “censorship”? It isn’t. It is the same free speech that you are willing to support when Vance does it.
Where is the censorship? Did the government order it taken down or blocked? Or are we not allowed to condemn it?
That doesn’t change that it was badly done. Hell, you sure seem to have a double standard when it comes to teens…it isn’t ok to do it to Sandmann but it’s ok to do it to this “dumb” woman. Sandmann was 16, she was 17. Not much of a difference.
Once that girl agreed to appear in front of cameras she opened herself up to every kind of criticism the world can hold. And it was only her inability to verbally express herself. Some are mercilessly criticized for everything from their hair, to the color of their toenails. Look at what the democrats did to Monica Lewinsky. You want criticism, they made her name into a VERB and still do to this very day, decades after she became "the news".