The article's Blacklist analogy is simply that in the HUAC era, Hollywood took the safest path of least resistance. Whether from the Left or the Right, we have come to a unique position in American history where a mob can assemble entirely on social media and demand someone's head. If a Qanon believer can be seated in the US Congress, then what is off the table for any public person to advocate freely? So the question is: Is there a distinction between being fired for being conservative and being fired for publicly espousing (mainstream) conservative ideas? It is what the article argues.)Ģ) Her other "offensive" tweets were generally echoes of very common (and arguably, now, mainstream GOP) right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories. I haven't read the NY Mag piece, so maybe the argument is more nuanced than that, but if that's the case, then the editor should have chosen a better title.The article makes two points:ġ) The tweet that broke the camel's back was not antisemitic, as it was characterized in most media reports. Yes, many conservatives seem to think that's the case, but that doesn't make it so. My understanding is no one is getting "fired for being conservative" so saying he agrees with that statement seems.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |