[MD] Free Speech

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[DMB on Coulter and Horowitz]
They're both profoundly anti-intellectual, hateful and fearful.

[Platt]
Looks to me like DMB is fearful of and hateful toward Coulter, Horowitz,
Limbaugh and (oh yes, he deliberately omitted) Friedman.

[Arlo]
What we're seeing here is the "reduction to meaninglessness" (reductio ad
adiafora?) tactic, a tactic derived from the "selfish" discussion in the
Randian tradition.

To combat accusations of selfishness, advocates of such behavior turned to
redefine the word to apply to their critics. The outcome? Mother Theresa is as
selfish as any industrialist because she is motivated by greed at making
herself feel better, or working to better her own lot in Heaven. A person who
donates 50% of her/his income to charity is no less selfish than one who
donates nothing, since "donation" results in feelings of "good about myself".

Just recently, the tactic was to make Arlo as "intolerant" as the KKK he
criticized. The KKK are intolerant because they incite violence against a group
of people. Arlo is just as intolerant for condemning this on intellectual
grounds.

Above, the same ploy is used against DMB. By exposing Coulter's reliance on fear
and hatred, DMB is as fear-mongering and hateful as Coulter.

These attempts to redefine critical words, in an attempt to deflect criticisms
back onto those bringing intellectual criticisms against immoral behavior.
Luckily, its clear that in the MOQ "immorality" occurs when one level attempts
to control levels above it. Coulter, for example, uses social-level patterns of
fear and xenophobic-inspired hatred to pervert and distort intellectual
patterns, to subserviate intellectual patterns to social control. DMB seeks to
reinstate intellect above Coulter's social-level emotionally manipulative
rhetoric. Coutler's actions are immoral. DMBs are not.

Similarly, I do NOT find intellectual criticism of the KKK to be "immoral" as is
the social-level assault the KKK brings against intellectual patterns. DMB is
not "fearful and hateful" for bringing moral criticism against those that
employ "fear and hate" to bolster social patterns over intellectual ones. Arlo
is not "intolerant" for bringing moral criticism agaist a group that employs
"intolerance" to subjugate intectual patterns to social ones. Mother Theresa is
not "selfish" because her selfless behavior brings her happiness.

By seeking to "define down" words into meaningless, Platt to is relying on a
tactic that perverts intellect to social-level hierarchies. By making moral
condemnation no better than the condemned behavior, we sink into the abyss of
immoral justification of immoral behavior. In the end, of course, its akin to a
murderer attacking the jury by saying "you're all murderers too!". We could, of
course, liken this to the Pee Wee Maneuver, "I know what you are but what am
I!".

The KKK is intolerant.
No, you're intolerant for saying so.

Coulter relies on hate and fear.
No, you are hateful and fearful for saying so.

Pee Wee would be proud. The rest of us should be chagrined.