3268

Child Porn charges… because of course.

3269

Yeah, don’t assume that people can read links to the NYT or Washington Post these days. WaPo is terrible on ad blockers and NYT I refuse to sign up for which means I get one free view per month.

3270

I wound up subbing to WA Post. What irritates me is the first year was a deal from Amex so it was I think around 50 dollars. Then they tried to charge me a 100 so I canceled and got an offer for 36. I would be nice if they would just charge… 36/39 and get more people reading their stuff.

I also don’t do monthly subs for the most part, so I pull the trigger with annual deals and annual deals alone.

3271

Note that in Chrome and I presume some other browsers you can set certain domains to delete their cookies on browser exit. If you do this with nytimes.com you can read unlimited articles without having to fiddle with the cookies manually or having to enter incognito mode. Of course you may consider this dishonorable, but I don’t, as I don’t routinely read the Times anymore anyway, but I do want to be able to follow links to their stuff I am presented with. This works for most sites that offer limited free views per month.

3272

Adams, who pleaded guilty in September to one count of misdemeanor battery, is suspended for 60 days without pay. He was sentenced to 365 days in jail but was required to serve only two.

Must be nice.

3273

In this case mousing over the link (or copy-pasting it) can at least allow one to read the headline, which does mention ‘child porn.’

3274

I feel like this is the news journalism equivalent of the “For sale…” short story.

3275

Fixed that for ya. ;-)

3276

But when people said something about a year or so, they were anti-Semitic.

3277

I’m not really that interested in defending Shapiro, who I feel is a trashy opportunist, but…

When you watch that clip of Shapiro, he actually uses “donating money to nazis” as an example of something that you perhaps SHOULD use as a reason to not give that business money. So that’s kind of a bad statement by Campbell.

On some level, there is merit to the idea that if everyone gets hyper partisan and refuses to do business with anyone who differs from their views in any way, you are going to end up with a society that probably won’t function very well. If people are ostracized for any dissident views, you run the risk of a society which ends up being similar to the Nazi fascist state, where everyone is informing on everyone else whenever they say anything “bad”.

But, at the same time, there need to be consequences for truly abhorrent behavior. Supporting nazism is one of those types of behavior.

Shapiro goes a bit too far here, (or not far enough, depending on how you view it) in that he suggests that maybe you shouldn’t even care about if someone is a Nazi, if they are providing you with good goods and services.

I’d say that, even if they are providing me with goods and services that are of high quality, if they are treating OTHER people poorly, I do have a moral obligation to stand up for those others who may not have the same consumer power that I do.

For a company like ChikFilA? They make a good sandwich. And by all accounts, they actually treat their employees very well. The fact that they have evangelical christian beliefs, and think that homosexuality is wrong? As long as they do not openly discriminate against gay people, I don’t have any problem giving them my money. If they started advocating the lynching and murder of gay people? Then I’d have a problem.

3278

As you note later in your post, immediately after that statement he literally states “I can see the argument that you shouldn’t even look into that at all” and continues to completely backpedal from from the idea that even boycotting an actual Nazi is acceptable. The characterization of his statements is completely correct.

3279

It’s not an accurate characterization of his statement.

He suggests that such a situation is one where you could choose to not give money to that business, but that he could “see the argument” that you shouldn’t even consider that.

3280

And then he continues to speak about how bad it is to even consider the viewpoints of a company owner. He completely backpedaled from already weak statement that boycotting a Nazi might maybe be acceptable. He is transparently disingenuous with the one mention that it might be okay if they are a Nazi followed immediately by multiple statements that we should not even consider at all a company owner’s views.

He basically said “well, maybe this would be okay” followed by “no even that would not be okay”. It’s a really common style of bad faith argument.

3281

Ironically Chika-fil-a has said they’re going to stop doing it because it was bad for business.

3282

Let’s look at this actual words

“Obviously there are limits to that. If you believe they are giving money to a Nazi organization, or something. Something that is completely outside what we call the Overton window. Then I think there’s a somewhat appro… Maybe, Maybe, I can see the argument that maybe you shouldn’t look into even that.”

This is the strongest statement of support he gives to the idea of boycotting a business that donates to Nazi organizations. A skeptical double maybe followed immediately by

"I can see the argument that you shouldn’t even look into that at all. That it’s better for the country if you don’t worry about, at all, the viewpoint of the person of the company you are patronizing. The reason being again that we do live in a common polis and if you want the best possible product at the best possible price then you should stop worrying about what people think, it’s a free country and these sort of cultural crackdown that is happening, right now, where we are supposed to not patronize the businesses, that are disassociated with the view of the owners, that that leads to a very bad logic. "

The characterization of his statements was 100% accurate. He clearly abandons the idea that even boycotting a company that donates to Nazi organizations. At best he said “maybe, maybe” and then clearly indicated that no, even that would be wrong.

Heck, he never even completes the statement that it might be appropriate before backpedaling from it.

3283

Don’t worry within the month he’ll be calling for boycotts because someone supports a liberal.

3284

No, it was clearly not, even from the text that you quoted.
Saying, “I can see the argument that you shouldn’t do this” is not the same as saying, “you shouldn’t do this.” Those are different statements. Especially when the thing being discussed is a situation which he, himself, created as an example of something that crosses a line.

But here’s the deal… I don’t want to defend Ben Shapiro. So you believe what you want. But saying, “That characterization is 100% correct” is clearly false.

3285

Do you also fall for it when Trump says “many people are saying”.

“I can see the argument that…” is a common and completely transparent way that someone will try to disassociate themselves with the argument they are making, Notice how he never counters said argument and leaves it as his conclusion.

3286

You do you, man. Like I said, I don’t care to defend Ben Shapiro. But I also don’t need to characterize his statements to criticize him. He says plenty of stuff, straight up, which I can disagree with.

3287

His words are completely clear and weasel words like “I can see the argument that…” while making, supporting, not in any way refuting, and concluding with the argument that he “can see” negate nothing. If you want to fall for it, that’s your prerogative. I choose not to.