Generally I wouldn't automatically assume that someone shared the opinion of someone they quoted, however if someone posts something really offensive without comment (or worse yet with positive or supporting comments), it really strikes the wrong cord.
I'm not saying the comment was as bad as the example I'm going to give, this next example is just going further to present the idea in one of its strongest forms. (And to be absolutely clear, I in no way support the comment I'm going to put in quotes below, or think you do, or think anyone else here does)
If you had posted (without comment, and not in the context of a conversation that made it clear you opposed the idea, and/or where presenting the quote to show, that yes, some person being talked about really does hold such bizarre and offensive views)
"Stalin had the right idea about how to treat Ukrainian farmers, he just didn't go far enough."
Then I would be rather shocked. No, I'm not saying that Smiley's statement was as offensive as that statement (if made seriously, and not as examples of an offensive statement), and I'm not saying that Ayers or Smiley was/is as bad as Stalin. As I pointed out above, I'm presenting a more extreme example to make the principle clear.
If you posted such a thing, I wouldn't assume that you really believe it, I think I know you to well for that, but it would be rather shocking none the less. Somewhat less offensive views (like Smiley's quote) aren't quite as shocking, but OTOH leave some room for doubt about whether the poster actually believes them, or at least feels that they are perfectly legitimate and acceptable, without necessarily fully endorsing them.
And BTW as for Friedman's "No Neutrals" post, I do pretty much agree to it (but haven't carefully checked to make sure I agree with every single statement he made in that blog post) |
