Instead of debating whether PG tolerates criticism for his views, now it's whether he likes it or not, and instead of whether he enjoys immunity from criticism or not, now it used to be the case in the past but not anymore.
In the spirit of good debate, I will concede on the latter and conclude with the advent of social media, this renders it a moot point but on the former we can attest that he got a thick skin and can take a lot of hits from critics, don't you agree?
Now to the strawman, his central thesis boils down to this; people shouldn't lose their jobs merely for expressing their views, and to show some leniency and consideration for people's personal circumstances and track record of past good deeds when found guilty by the vindictive justice championed by the online mob and not to throw the baby with the bathwater.
No, and indeed in the root comment I expressed that. My beef is with his lack of critical thinking in the application of his abstract analysis, and with his complete rejection of the idea that people he agrees with politically might be guilty of the same thing at the moment.
1- You think that his writings are too abstract for you and not grounded more in the sociocultural realities of today's America, right?
2. Seriously, I don't know who his associates are or his political orientation is (right or left), I just happen to agree with his thesis outlined in this essay and probably would disapprove of some of his past/future views if I happen to find them unreasonable, that's all.
Instead of debating whether PG tolerates criticism for his views, now it's whether he likes it or not, and instead of whether he enjoys immunity from criticism or not, now it used to be the case in the past but not anymore.
In the spirit of good debate, I will concede on the latter and conclude with the advent of social media, this renders it a moot point but on the former we can attest that he got a thick skin and can take a lot of hits from critics, don't you agree?
Now to the strawman, his central thesis boils down to this; people shouldn't lose their jobs merely for expressing their views, and to show some leniency and consideration for people's personal circumstances and track record of past good deeds when found guilty by the vindictive justice championed by the online mob and not to throw the baby with the bathwater.
Is this really objectionable in your opinion?