The article is quite clear: It’s about exactly what the title explains. I’m not sure how you would find it unclear unless you were skimming too fast to read it or you went in trying to find an angle to push a different agenda.
> If it's about using Signal app to escape FoIA it's odd not to discuss who actually started that or use of personal servers in basements & shredding mails when caught.
This is just “whataboutism”. If you want to play the whataboutism game, then what about all of the theatrics and threats that came with the email server story? Why have the rules suddenly changed so that something far worse is suddenly no big deal?
> If it's about the leak which was inadvertent even if a sack-able offence then that's nothing to do with 1st or any amendment.
If the best complaint you can muster is that it’s a different issue than the headline issue, that’s hardly a defense.
> If it's about free speech in general, to have any trace of integrity, objectivity & not sound like propaganda it must discuss the censorship and cancel culture and its inventors
Again, a weak attempt at whataboutism.
And again, it doesn’t make sense for you to try to defend one thing by comparing it to another perceived thing you don’t like (“cancel culture”).
Is your biggest concern with your article that it focused on current events instead of dwelling on these past issues? It’s an article about the current administration. Trying to drudge up past grievances is irrelevant.
> I know this comment will be unpopular given the general trend in this forum but it needs to be said. In fact how's it's received itself will itself be a good mirror.
I suspect your comment will be poorly received because it’s a weak attempt at whataboutism. It’s also logically inconsistent, given that you’re trying to downplay the current administration’s actions by comparing them to prior administration’s actions or vague culture war material. If you’re determined to dismiss any criticisms as a mirror of something, maybe pause and take some time to first think about how your own arguments could be made without reaching for whataboutism or past grievances. Try focusing on the matter at hand and who’s currently in charge, because it’s not Hilary Clinton or your “cancel culture” bogeymen making any of these decisions or lawsuits, but that’s all you want us to look at.
I'm open to reasonable criticism like yours appears to be.
It's not wrong to mention past given that past has great chances of returning as future. Not just in US context, but in most electoral democracies.
By not discussing issues objectively the article just reads like another NYT, MSNBC rant. Sure be my guest and go ahead but we know what the credibility of that approach is.
The article is about current events. The discussion is objective.
Your desire to bring past events into the discussion is irrelevant. That’s not what objective means. Comparing things to other things is relativism, not objectivity.
You’re just grasping at straws, but your arguments aren’t even logically consistent. I really don’t understand how someone can get in so deep that their thought process starts trying to rationalize things away like this.
It's the authors choice to make it a current affairs discussion but it being an important constitutional, free speech one as they argue.
When there's two big parties both enjoying power in cycles, pretending that issues started on 21st Jan 2025 is not a clever way of convincing anyone other than the already converted.
The right is now at loss because they are the party in power. Yet they try to hang on to their hate of Biden and Hillary and even Obama. But people can see that it doesn't matter how bad previous governments may or may not have been. What matters is how "good" the current government is.
That's a great piece of advice only wish KH ran on her record instead of trying to scare Americans about how evil DT is! Maybe we won't be in this mess!
The article is quite clear: It’s about exactly what the title explains. I’m not sure how you would find it unclear unless you were skimming too fast to read it or you went in trying to find an angle to push a different agenda.
> If it's about using Signal app to escape FoIA it's odd not to discuss who actually started that or use of personal servers in basements & shredding mails when caught.
This is just “whataboutism”. If you want to play the whataboutism game, then what about all of the theatrics and threats that came with the email server story? Why have the rules suddenly changed so that something far worse is suddenly no big deal?
> If it's about the leak which was inadvertent even if a sack-able offence then that's nothing to do with 1st or any amendment.
If the best complaint you can muster is that it’s a different issue than the headline issue, that’s hardly a defense.
> If it's about free speech in general, to have any trace of integrity, objectivity & not sound like propaganda it must discuss the censorship and cancel culture and its inventors
Again, a weak attempt at whataboutism.
And again, it doesn’t make sense for you to try to defend one thing by comparing it to another perceived thing you don’t like (“cancel culture”).
Is your biggest concern with your article that it focused on current events instead of dwelling on these past issues? It’s an article about the current administration. Trying to drudge up past grievances is irrelevant.
> I know this comment will be unpopular given the general trend in this forum but it needs to be said. In fact how's it's received itself will itself be a good mirror.
I suspect your comment will be poorly received because it’s a weak attempt at whataboutism. It’s also logically inconsistent, given that you’re trying to downplay the current administration’s actions by comparing them to prior administration’s actions or vague culture war material. If you’re determined to dismiss any criticisms as a mirror of something, maybe pause and take some time to first think about how your own arguments could be made without reaching for whataboutism or past grievances. Try focusing on the matter at hand and who’s currently in charge, because it’s not Hilary Clinton or your “cancel culture” bogeymen making any of these decisions or lawsuits, but that’s all you want us to look at.