Because if conservatives don't believe it, it's BIAS!
Or censorship—Eastman writes in to say that Wright's letter to the community pledging to "correct the record" on the misinformation people like Eastman have been feeding petition trustee candidate Stephen F. Smith is a threat of censorship. It's censorship because Wright's saying Smith is wrong, and that's not admissible at the Conservative Market of Free and Open Discourse.
Of course, if Eastman actually had any facts on his side, he could have used those to refute what Wright said in his community letter, and that would have been totally alright.
Is this a conservative thing, or is it just another example of how a lot of college students don't understand the difference between "censorship" and criticism from someone in a position of authority?
ReplyDeleteThe conservapedia thing is an embarrassment, as is this, but I don't think the cons have a monopoly on this type of idiocy.
They certainly don't, but I feel that conservative rhetoric a) jumps more readily to accusations of suppression and censorship (Paul Heintz, nominally liberal, a notable exception) and b) does consider to be inherently biased anything that doesn't include their own input and place it on equal footing with one's own truth-claim.
ReplyDelete