Shut-up he argued

Vincent J. Curtis

25 Aug 22

RE: Who decides?  By Philip G. White.  Published in the Hamilton Spectator 25 Aug 22

“Shut-up!” he argued.  That’s the essence of Philip G. White’s letter regarding an opinion piece he belligerently disagrees with.  It’s not enough for him to point out the errors in the argument, instead the moral character of the author has to be questioned, and then the moral character of the editor is questioned for publishing controversial opinions.

(Why is he complaining about the publisher, and not the author?)

The characteristic of opinion is that it can be right or wrong.  But White thinks that because an author has expressed controversial opinions in the past, and the organization he writes for is of a certain political persuasion, the public must be denied reading new opinion pieces, and an editor who publishes them calls his moral character into question.

I know how this works, and it happened, and happens, to me.  In the end, the paper loses because it publishes the same banal opinions that many people know are discredited.  They are denied seeing their side get aired.  Public discourse suffers because the side that controls the medium don’t want discussion.  They want propaganda.

So, what’s left?  Separation, or violence?  When the talking stops, what else is there but force?

-30-