Comments on: Campus Mourns the Death of Free Thought http://cmcforum.com/life/humor/04142009-campus-mourns-the-death-of-free-thought The Official Student Publication of Claremont McKenna College Tue, 22 May 2012 03:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Charles Johnson http://cmcforum.com/life/humor/04142009-campus-mourns-the-death-of-free-thought#comment-7326 Charles Johnson Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:55:03 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=3519#comment-7326 Sigh. Yet another critic who doesn't know what he is talking about. Sigh. Yet another critic who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

]]> By: Charles Johnson http://cmcforum.com/life/humor/04142009-campus-mourns-the-death-of-free-thought#comment-47393 Charles Johnson Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:55:00 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=3519#comment-47393 Sigh. Yet another critic who doesn't know what he is talking about. Sigh. Yet another critic who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

]]> By: ridiculous http://cmcforum.com/life/humor/04142009-campus-mourns-the-death-of-free-thought#comment-7308 ridiculous Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:48:38 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=3519#comment-7308 Charles Johnson's new policy change directly contradicts his lauments about the importance of free speech. He deserves to be called out on such a hypocritical stance. Further, it is astonishing that Charles can claim to be so insulted by weight and sexuality comments when he reguarly issues far more serious attacks on others. The fact remains- Charles is a hypocritical hobbit. Charles Johnson’s new policy change directly contradicts his lauments about the importance of free speech. He deserves to be called out on such a hypocritical stance. Further, it is astonishing that Charles can claim to be so insulted by weight and sexuality comments when he reguarly issues far more serious attacks on others. The fact remains- Charles is a hypocritical hobbit.

]]> By: ridiculous http://cmcforum.com/life/humor/04142009-campus-mourns-the-death-of-free-thought#comment-47392 ridiculous Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:48:00 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=3519#comment-47392 Charles Johnson's new policy change directly contradicts his lauments about the importance of free speech. He deserves to be called out on such a hypocritical stance. Further, it is astonishing that Charles can claim to be so insulted by weight and sexuality comments when he reguarly issues far more serious attacks on others. The fact remains- Charles is a hypocritical hobbit. Charles Johnson’s new policy change directly contradicts his lauments about the importance of free speech. He deserves to be called out on such a hypocritical stance. Further, it is astonishing that Charles can claim to be so insulted by weight and sexuality comments when he reguarly issues far more serious attacks on others. The fact remains- Charles is a hypocritical hobbit.

]]> By: wow http://cmcforum.com/life/humor/04142009-campus-mourns-the-death-of-free-thought#comment-6888 wow Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:27:28 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=3519#comment-6888 honestly, if people start posting on another blog just to respond to Charles' post, they really need to find something else to do with their time. who really actually cares what charles writes on his blog? it may be controversial, but do people really *care* what he writes? honestly, if people start posting on another blog just to respond to Charles’ post, they really need to find something else to do with their time. who really actually cares what charles writes on his blog? it may be controversial, but do people really *care* what he writes?

]]> By: wow http://cmcforum.com/life/humor/04142009-campus-mourns-the-death-of-free-thought#comment-47391 wow Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:27:00 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=3519#comment-47391 honestly, if people start posting on another blog just to respond to Charles' post, they really need to find something else to do with their time. who really actually cares what charles writes on his blog? it may be controversial, but do people really *care* what he writes? honestly, if people start posting on another blog just to respond to Charles’ post, they really need to find something else to do with their time. who really actually cares what charles writes on his blog? it may be controversial, but do people really *care* what he writes?

]]> By: Crossed the Line? http://cmcforum.com/life/humor/04142009-campus-mourns-the-death-of-free-thought#comment-6884 Crossed the Line? Thu, 16 Apr 2009 03:22:20 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=3519#comment-6884 Kim, I don't think I need to put my name behind my post to point out that this piece unfairly targeted an individual. I also don't understand why everyone feels like Charles must be obligated to allow commenters in order to make him a defender of free speech. That's silly. It's his blog for his opinions. He can choose the most appropriate way to use it. The Forum debate did not center around comments or no comments. It centered around deleting comments that the editors decided they didn't like. That's why many of us believed it was unfair censorship. You'll allow some comments--but only those with political stances you like. However, if the Forum decided it wanted to get rid of comments altogether, that would be totally reasonable. They wouldn't be censoring anyone; they'd just be changing the rules of their site. The distinction is rather easy to understand. I think most of Charles's liberal critics are smart enough to see why Charles's actions are not hypocritical. But they aren't really interested in arguing the finer points of free speech. Most of them just hate him so much they'll jump at a chance to take a cheap shot at him. Thinking and talking about issues--or "having a dialogue"--simply don't matter. No wonder he dropped the comments section. Kim, I don’t think I need to put my name behind my post to point out that this piece unfairly targeted an individual. I also don’t understand why everyone feels like Charles must be obligated to allow commenters in order to make him a defender of free speech. That’s silly. It’s his blog for his opinions. He can choose the most appropriate way to use it. The Forum debate did not center around comments or no comments. It centered around deleting comments that the editors decided they didn’t like. That’s why many of us believed it was unfair censorship. You’ll allow some comments–but only those with political stances you like. However, if the Forum decided it wanted to get rid of comments altogether, that would be totally reasonable. They wouldn’t be censoring anyone; they’d just be changing the rules of their site. The distinction is rather easy to understand. I think most of Charles’s liberal critics are smart enough to see why Charles’s actions are not hypocritical. But they aren’t really interested in arguing the finer points of free speech. Most of them just hate him so much they’ll jump at a chance to take a cheap shot at him. Thinking and talking about issues–or “having a dialogue”–simply don’t matter. No wonder he dropped the comments section.

]]> By: Crossed the Line? http://cmcforum.com/life/humor/04142009-campus-mourns-the-death-of-free-thought#comment-47390 Crossed the Line? Thu, 16 Apr 2009 03:22:00 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=3519#comment-47390 Kim, I don't think I need to put my name behind my post to point out that this piece unfairly targeted an individual. I also don't understand why everyone feels like Charles must be obligated to allow commenters in order to make him a defender of free speech. That's silly. It's his blog for his opinions. He can choose the most appropriate way to use it. The Forum debate did not center around comments or no comments. It centered around deleting comments that the editors decided they didn't like. That's why many of us believed it was unfair censorship. You'll allow some comments--but only those with political stances you like. However, if the Forum decided it wanted to get rid of comments altogether, that would be totally reasonable. They wouldn't be censoring anyone; they'd just be changing the rules of their site. The distinction is rather easy to understand. I think most of Charles's liberal critics are smart enough to see why Charles's actions are not hypocritical. But they aren't really interested in arguing the finer points of free speech. Most of them just hate him so much they'll jump at a chance to take a cheap shot at him. Thinking and talking about issues--or "having a dialogue"--simply don't matter. No wonder he dropped the comments section. Kim, I don’t think I need to put my name behind my post to point out that this piece unfairly targeted an individual. I also don’t understand why everyone feels like Charles must be obligated to allow commenters in order to make him a defender of free speech. That’s silly. It’s his blog for his opinions. He can choose the most appropriate way to use it. The Forum debate did not center around comments or no comments. It centered around deleting comments that the editors decided they didn’t like. That’s why many of us believed it was unfair censorship. You’ll allow some comments–but only those with political stances you like. However, if the Forum decided it wanted to get rid of comments altogether, that would be totally reasonable. They wouldn’t be censoring anyone; they’d just be changing the rules of their site. The distinction is rather easy to understand. I think most of Charles’s liberal critics are smart enough to see why Charles’s actions are not hypocritical. But they aren’t really interested in arguing the finer points of free speech. Most of them just hate him so much they’ll jump at a chance to take a cheap shot at him. Thinking and talking about issues–or “having a dialogue”–simply don’t matter. No wonder he dropped the comments section.

]]> By: Kim M. http://cmcforum.com/life/humor/04142009-campus-mourns-the-death-of-free-thought#comment-6875 Kim M. Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:38:56 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=3519#comment-6875 Crosses the line? This article doesn't contain any ad hominem attacks on Charles Johnson and is a far cry from anything posted on Claremont Confessions. It does make fun of the Claremont Conservative and Charles's new editorial policy, which I think is fair. As you stated, the CC is well-read. A humorous article on a major policy change on a webpage so many students visit isn't out of place here. Also, I think your plea to end the anonymous posts would have more weight if there was a name behind it. Keep up the good work, Abhi. Crosses the line? This article doesn’t contain any ad hominem attacks on Charles Johnson and is a far cry from anything posted on Claremont Confessions. It does make fun of the Claremont Conservative and Charles’s new editorial policy, which I think is fair. As you stated, the CC is well-read. A humorous article on a major policy change on a webpage so many students visit isn’t out of place here.

Also, I think your plea to end the anonymous posts would have more weight if there was a name behind it.

Keep up the good work, Abhi.

]]> By: Kim M. http://cmcforum.com/life/humor/04142009-campus-mourns-the-death-of-free-thought#comment-47389 Kim M. Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:38:00 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=3519#comment-47389 Crosses the line? This article doesn't contain any ad hominem attacks on Charles Johnson and is a far cry from anything posted on Claremont Confessions. It does make fun of the Claremont Conservative and Charles's new editorial policy, which I think is fair. As you stated, the CC is well-read. A humorous article on a major policy change on a webpage so many students visit isn't out of place here. Also, I think your plea to end the anonymous posts would have more weight if there was a name behind it. Keep up the good work, Abhi. Crosses the line? This article doesn’t contain any ad hominem attacks on Charles Johnson and is a far cry from anything posted on Claremont Confessions. It does make fun of the Claremont Conservative and Charles’s new editorial policy, which I think is fair. As you stated, the CC is well-read. A humorous article on a major policy change on a webpage so many students visit isn’t out of place here.

Also, I think your plea to end the anonymous posts would have more weight if there was a name behind it.

Keep up the good work, Abhi.

]]>