Heretical


More heresy from CFG:

16 Comments for “Heretical”

  1. posted by Tom Jefferson on

    Um…Amazon is a private company and, as conservatives proclaim, its impolite to tell a business what to do. No free speech rights exist and no one is being treated like some dark ages heretic.

    Reply
  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Um … Amazon is a private company and, as conservatives proclaim, its impolite to tell a business what to do. No free speech rights exist and no one is being treated like some dark ages heretic.

    Well, those minor details aside, Republicans abolished the Fairness Doctrine (a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced) during the Reagan administration. Like the pig in the slaughterhouse, all that is left of the Fairness Doctrine is the squeal.

    Reply
    • posted by Agee on

      Well, that’s not how things actually worked, Tom. In the world of the Fairness Doctrine, the mainstream liberal-center-establishment view that was ubiquitously expressed by news anchors and journalists was not considered “political” — it was just reporting what was. Conservatives who challenged that hegemony were considered “political,” so if you allowed their voices on the air, you had to provide balance with, guess what, the establishment position. But in practice this limited conservative viewpoints even more, so more reinforcement for ideological hegemony.

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      That is the orthodox conservative view, Agee, I think that conservative orthodoxy was overstated. I thought so then and I think so now.

      I’m not sad to see the Fairness Doctrine gone, and I never was. The only possible justification for the Fairness Doctrine was that the government licensed use of the airwaves — essentially a multi-party monopoly — and had some obligation to ensure a level of “open forum” as a result. Thin soup.

      But I don’t think much of conservative whining about “cancel culture” in today’s media environment. I actually laughed one night watching Tucker Carlson whine about being silenced while he was talking to an audience in the millions.

      Media abounds with outlets, and the government plays no role whatsoever in determining which media capture market share and which don’t. Conservative viewpoints abound in today’s media environment, but more to the point, government has no legitimate role in determining the “fairness” of content on privately-owned media.

      What conservatives are whining about is that conservative ideas have to compete in the marketplace of ideas, rather than in an artificial government-controlled environment in which private media companies are forced to air conservative views. That’s an absurd and dangerous extension of government power over the marketplace of ideas.

      Conservatives need to get over “cancel culture”. It is nonsense.

      Reply
  3. posted by Tom Jefferson on

    And discrimination against someone because of the political party they support of don’t support is not addressed in the Federal constitution, most state constitutions and most human rights acts.

    Reply
  4. posted by Agee on

    “Tom Jefferson” seems to have a talent for making observations that don’t in particular address the issues at hand. Conservatives don’t believe in criticizing private companies??? Unless it’s direct censorship by government, it’s unfair to criticize deplatforming??? Because the Constitution doesn’t address discrimination based on political party (debatable, given the rights to political expression and activity that are expressly protected) no one should criticize discrimination based on political views or affiliation???

    These comments are so off-kilter that I suspect they’re meant to close down the discussion.

    Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      These comments so off-kilter that I suspect they’re meant to close down the discussion.

      I don’t know, Agee. Tom Jefferson raises, indirectly, a legitimate question, it seems to me.

      Conservatives have pushed any number of investigations into Facebook, Twitter and other social media, seeking to confirm that the social media outlets have an anti-conservative bias. Two of the more recent are (1) a letter from fifty conservative leaders “to the Attorneys General of all 50 states calling for an investigation into whether Big Tech companies are in violation of the Consumer Protection Statute in their respective states” (see Fox News “Conservative leaders call for state Attorneys General to probe Facebook, Twitter and Google over liberal bias“, February 23, 2021**), and (2) a call from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to regulate social media outlets as “public utilities” (see Conservative News Daily “Twitter, Facebook, Google Need Regulation Like a ‘Utility Company’: Texas AG Ken Paxton“, February 28, 2021**).

      What is the point of the investigations, if not to involve the government in forcing the social media outlets into something akin to the “Fairness Doctrine”?

      ==================

      ** I apologize for not providing links. IGF does not post comments with more than one link. I have provided the sources and actual headlines to facilitate search/location of the articles if you are not aware of these initiatives.

      Reply
  5. posted by Tom Jefferson on

    I’m not trying to bring a premature end to anything. Just cannot put up with hypocrisy.

    Reply
  6. posted by Tom Jefferson on

    Chad;

    If (conservative) people respected the legal separation between religion and government, people’s religious beliefs won’t be an issue.

    Sadly, plenty of anti-gay harassment and discriminatory laws comes from people’s religious beliefs.

    Reply
  7. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    This is off topic, but I notice that the IGF’s favorite homocon is no longer a homo. Does that make him just a con? Is he ex-deplorable, too, I wonder?

    Reply
    • posted by Kosh III on

      Huh? Who do you mean? Did he get conned by a pulpit pounder into pretending to be “healed?”

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      “Huh? Who do you mean? Did he get conned by a pulpit pounder into pretending to be “healed?”

      Milo. Read the linked article (Activist Milo Yiannopoulos is now ‘Ex-Gay,’ consecrating his life to St. Joseph), an interview with Doug Mainwaring:

      Milo Yiannopoulos, the gay man whose conservative messaging and willingness to speak the truth sparked riots on university campuses may well trigger more outrage now that he describes himself as “Ex-Gay” and “sodomy free,” and is leading a daily consecration to St. Joseph online.

      Milo has gone full tilt boogie into a backwater of extreme Catholic conservatism. What hasn’t changed, though, is Milo’s self-obsession and his addiction to making a public spectacle of himself.

      All Milo’s bombast about gay degeneracy and the “terror of transexuals” aside, what comes through is that Milo never accepted himself as a gay man. I started reading the interview with astonishment, but came away saddened by the level of self-hatred that underlies the interview.

      Reply
    • posted by Agee on

      Tom S. wrote: “I notice that the IGF’s favorite homocon is no longer a homo.”

      Favorite homocon?

      I did a quick search and found this from Stephen in 2017: https://igfculturewatch.com/?s=Milo — “I haven’t commented on the uproar over Milos Yiannopoulos because he and the circus around him bore me.”

      Reply
  8. posted by Tom Jefferson on

    As far as the book is concerned, someone who opposes LGBTQ civil rights – with already discussed exemptions – is probably not the best person to be taken seriously as an honest “rebuttal” to being transgender.

    Reply
  9. posted by Tom Jefferson on

    Milo is a con artist.

    Reply
  10. posted by Jorge on

    This is off topic, but I notice that the IGF’s favorite homocon is no longer a homo. Does that make him just a con? Is he ex-deplorable, too, I wonder?

    I thought I had posted a comment on all things Milo. I’m not enthused about puking it out again.

    Reply

Leave a Comment