NYT- Op-Ed Calls For The Complete Silencing of All Conservatives FOREVER
Because Liberals Can't Win When Public Debate Is Tolerated
By Ethan Huff
NaturalNews.com
Should free speech be limited or even silenced whenever the viewpoints being expressed are deemed inadequate, uninformed, or lacking in merit by “highly educated” college professors? The answer is yes, according to Bryan W. Van Norden, a professor of philosophy at Wuhan University in China, as well as Yale-NUS College and Vassar College.
In a recent op-ed he wrote for The New York Times, Norden attempts to make the case that freedom of speech should end where ignorance begins – or at least his private interpretation as to what constitutes ignorance. In this case, Norden sees conservative viewpoints as being ignorant, and wants conservatives not to have a voice when it comes to influencing public opinion.
In Norden’s view, only people like himself – the “properly educated,” as he puts it – have the capacity to mull through conflicting information and determine what’s true and what’s false. Because of this, conservatives who present information that he believes is false shouldn’t be allowed to do so any longer because there are apparently too many “improperly” educated people in the world that might fall for it.
Keep in mind that Norden’s definition of false information is simply information with which he disagrees. Illustrating this are two examples of “false” information that he presents in his article: The idea that the infamous photo of the crying illegal alien girl was staged, and the belief that the official story about what took place during the Sandy Hook school shooting might not be entirely true.
Sponsored solution from the Health Ranger Store: The Big Berkey water filter removes almost 100% of all contaminants using only the power of gravity (no electricity needed, works completely off-grid). Widely consider the ultimate "survival" water filter, the Big Berkey is made of stainless steel and has been laboratory verified for high-efficiency removal of heavy metals by CWC Labs, with tests personally conducted by Mike Adams. Explore more here.
As we recently reported, the TIME cover photo of the crying alien girl was, indeed, fake – something that even TIME itself now admits. And as far as Sandy Hook goes, there remains a whole host of unanswered questions about this strange incident that any rational, non-biased person has no choice but to admit are completely valid.
Liberals like Norden think they’re the only people on earth enlightened enough to understand facts and truth
But Norden doesn’t acknowledge any of this. In his opinion, the little girl in the pink jacket is, in fact, a migrant who was separated from her parents by the meanie Trump administration. And Sandy Hook happened exactly the way the government says it did – even the parts that don’t make a lick of logical sense.
It’s the epitome of elitist patronizing, illustrating just how high-minded liberals like Norden are when it comes to matters of fact and truth. In their deluded minds, people like Norden believe that their own personal truths – the way they see the world – is the ultimate truth, always. And anyone who dares to disagree by presenting an alternative argument is just some ignorant dolt spreading misinformation.
But it doesn’t work, as revealed by The Daily Caller‘s Ben Shapiro. In a well-crafted critique of Norden’s self-aggrandizing manifesto that basically calls for censorship of conservative voices, Shapiro reveals many of Norden’s grossly illogical positions, including his belief that there’s no single way to think about something rationally.
This is a truly ironic position for Norden to take, since he apparently believes that he and other people just like him hold a corner on truth. It’s simply the latest tactic of Ivory Tower lunatics like Norden who recognize that their influence on society is starting to wane, which is why they’re increasingly lashing out at the opposing viewpoints that are rapidly gaining ground in their place.
“In the end, Norden isn’t making an intellectual case for general societal disapproval of a particular position,” concludes Shapiro. “He’s expressing a primal frustration with the fact that his arguments aren’t winning. And thus he wants to change the rules of the game …”
