Thanks for engaging - I appreciate the chance to have a discussion.
I haven't read any previous thread on this issue. Just from your comment, it appears that discussion of this issue is absolutely alive and well - we are discussing it right here!
The question of balance between physical and economic health has hardly been suppressed - governors, mayors and public health officials across the country are engaging in it every day and are being quoted in major news outlets regularly.
I too wish, like Taibbi, that we didn't have a left/right media where everyone takes a particular side and vilifies the others, but while that points to a decay in journalistic decorum, I don't see how it qualifies as censorship and suppression of free speech.
If I want to know how conservatives feel, I read the WSJ and listen to Fox News. For middle-of-the-road liberals, NYT and NPR. To get mad about rich people, Red Rose Twitter. It's all out there, completely uncensored!
In the face of all this abundance, I continue to be mystified at Taibbi's rage about this one particular video, whose purveyors have suspect motives to boot. Like, if I was a lawyer trying to make a case, this wouldn't be one of my top witnesses.
I think, what is discribed in that comment, is essentially what free speech is all about: a spark for a broader discussion. It also is what the Springtime Revolutions of 1848 were all about: free communications and free assembly to facilitate a discussion, which may lead to a (democratic) formation of will. Inhibiting such a discussion by any means of authority (and an appeal to common good as perceived by that authority) is much like what had been before this and what that revolution was an answer to. In a sense, we're on the best way of backtracking to before 1848. Is this really the answer?
As to the discussion here, mind that it is not the discussion that was and may have been there, but a meta discussion on this discussion. The particular discussion is gone, with no traces left.
Regarding bipartisan divides, mind that I am located rather far away from the US (as may be guessed from the previous context, in Europe). However, the big platforms, which have established some kind of oligopoly for virtual assembly, while mostly located in the US, are of global concern and shaping discussions and chances for them happening at all in a global manner. Politics are derailing all over the world, with regard to a second half of the 20th century context, and there's no obvious answer in place. However, inhibiting virtual assembly by silencing those controversial sparks, which may ignite them, probably isn't the way. At best, it may just further the divide. (On the other hand, having a "spark free", homogeneous conversation is probably much in the commercial interest of anyone selling targeted advertising along with providing the very platform for this conversation.) Free speech in a lonely, homogeneous (echo) chamber, maybe in company of a few friends, who are consenting anyway, isn't what free speech ought to about in a political sense. It's more than a right to verbalize.
I haven't read any previous thread on this issue. Just from your comment, it appears that discussion of this issue is absolutely alive and well - we are discussing it right here!
The question of balance between physical and economic health has hardly been suppressed - governors, mayors and public health officials across the country are engaging in it every day and are being quoted in major news outlets regularly.
I too wish, like Taibbi, that we didn't have a left/right media where everyone takes a particular side and vilifies the others, but while that points to a decay in journalistic decorum, I don't see how it qualifies as censorship and suppression of free speech.
If I want to know how conservatives feel, I read the WSJ and listen to Fox News. For middle-of-the-road liberals, NYT and NPR. To get mad about rich people, Red Rose Twitter. It's all out there, completely uncensored!
In the face of all this abundance, I continue to be mystified at Taibbi's rage about this one particular video, whose purveyors have suspect motives to boot. Like, if I was a lawyer trying to make a case, this wouldn't be one of my top witnesses.