Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (33518)	10/17/2001 1:12:26 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The only major changes in America for the good have come from speech critical of the status quo. Labor Rights. Women's suffrage. Minority Rights. There is a vast difference between advocating for change -- which I have done more than my fair share of in my day -- and blaming the United States for causing the WTC incident. Good social activitism, IMO, builds on the strengths of the country, points out how it can be better than it has been, advocates for a more perfect implementation of the principles which underly our greatness. In so doing, it has to point out the problems with that implementation. And there have been many, and are still some. But the underlying intent is to criticize for the sake of improving. If you have followed this thread for some time, you are aware that I have always been a strong advocate of free speech, often recommending Hentoff's book on the subject. But that doesn't make me blind to the fact that the exercise of free speech can be irresponsible. Still protected, yes. But irresponsible. That I will defend another's right to say what's on their mind doesn't prohibit me from calling them irresponsible when that is called for. I don't know whether you are capable of understanding this distinction, or not. Some people are, some aren't. I don't know into which group you fall.