Free speech for the left, but not the right?
It’s safe to say that tensions in this country are at an all-time high. The entire 2016 campaign was like a runaway train speeding down a hill, picking up steam, and barreling toward some disastrous finish.Did it never occur to the editors of the NY Times who selected this opinion piece that many may feel the same way about what they print in their publications? Did they ignore the actual violence being perpetrated by the left to suppress speech? They appear to have more tolerance for the Brownshirts of liberal fascism than for people with a different point of view.
Now that we’re on this side of the election, things aren’t much better. We’ve had seemingly endless protests and marches, and some have turned into rioting and looting. Resist, you nasty women!
Much worse than that, we witnessed the shooting of GOP Congressman Stephen Scalise, who is still in the hospital recovering from what was none other than politically-fueled hatred. Our prayers are for his quick and full recovery.
What constitutes actual violence is patently obvious. To hurt another person physically, you must cross a very clear line.
Or, if you’re The New York Times, speech also equals actual violence.
Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sick, alter your brain – even kill neurons – and shorten your life.Sounds like someone needs a safe space.
Your body also contains little packets of genetic material that sit on the ends of your chromosomes. They’re called telomeres. Each time your cells divide, their telomeres get a little shorter, and when they become too short, you die. This is normal aging. But guess what else shrinks your telomeres? Chronic stress.
If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech — at least certain types of speech — can be a form of violence.
This idea — that there is often no difference between speech and violence — has stuck many as a coddling or infantilizing of students, as well as a corrosive influence on the freedom of expression necessary for intellectual progress.