"So I'm of two minds on this. Certainly, there should not be any federal officer, state or local, anybody who takes an oath to the Constitution encouraging this sort of thing. The impropriety there should be obvious. However, and while I do think it's necessary to impose this sort of circumspection on people who indulge in their worst instincts on the internet,"
"we should be careful about rationalizing behaviors that we wouldn't want to see in our opponents. It's a very deeply human thing to want to mete out a level of pain commensurate with what we're experiencing, that doesn't necessarily make it noble or just, continued the conservative commentator. We should be circumspect about the kind of behaviors that we are policing, seeking to police, or at least asking responsible parties in society, cultural and corporate, to police for us. It's a fine line."
Major corporations including Microsoft, Delta, Office Depot, NASDAQ, Carolina Panthers, and MSNBC have shut down negative public comments about Charlie Kirk and disciplined employees who posted celebratory remarks about his assassination. Some corporate responses amount to political hygiene and enforceable morals clauses, making restraint reasonable. Federal, state, and local officers who take oaths to the Constitution must not encourage violence. Individuals who indulge internet vitriol should exercise circumspection. Conservatives should avoid rationalizing punitive behaviors they would reject in opponents, since seeking retribution is human but not necessarily noble or just. Policing cultural and corporate behavior requires careful judgment to avoid hypocrisy.
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]