Laura Ingraham's Stalinism

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

She's not engaging in freedom though.

Yeah, I don't know how many more times I can put this; She is using her freedom. If you think what she's doing is calling for the law to be changed in order to force these people to do something, then that is something you need to prove. But as it stands It is okay to use your own freedom to criticize other peoples' use of their freedom. You're in fact doing it right now.

When she states that people are being Stalinists, she's saying that they should not be exercising their freedom, since it harms her.

That isn't to say she believes they shouldn't have that freedom. How is it you don't understand that fundamental difference?

She is the same person who had no problem with boycotts against Kathy Griffin after she made a joke about Trump. So, why is she objecting when she gets a dose of her own medicine? You are defending a person who is making an idiotic comment that is not even remotely true regarding people exercising their personal freedoms in protesting against her.

Well, that wasn't something you ever brought up as part of the equation. Maybe there is an argument to be made against her there, but I don't care, because I'm defending her on this issue as I agree with the issue and not because I'm a fan of hers. I'm under no illusion that Laura Ingraham is an idiot. I don't like almost anyone on fox news. But unlike what you're suggesting, I don't sacrifice my principles and what I actually believe for the sake of punishing someone I don't like. I've had this idea before that advertisements should be differentiated from the content they're running on. It is something with very unnecessary (and dangerous) ramifications.

She is being boycotted because she insulted a kid

It doesn't matter to me if she said all the students in the parkland shooting deserved to die. There is already a method in place that allows people to defund her and defeat her in the open market place of ideas: Just don't watch her show, yourself. What these individuals are trying to do is be worth more than they actually are as an individual viewer by telling advertisers to also go against her, but that's just another thing besides my main point

She is being boycotted because she insulted a kid, as opposed to making a substantive argument

Why don't these boy-cotters take that strategy? Make a substantive argument against why she should insult a kid involved in a mass shooting rather than try to de-platform her via her income.

[-1-]

When you have a large and powerful lobby group with vast resources it's easy to see how the media can be 'persuaded' to cow tow to it, with threats of boycotts and withdrawn advertising. Newspapers have shut down for no less, hence the epidemic of forced and insincere 'apologies' we have to endure on a regular basis.

But the brunt of the grunt in largest numbers and widest breadths happen in America, you forgot to add? The Rothchildren, Konrad Black, Keef Diefenbaker, Abraham L. Ganeff, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, all old American families who made their monies illegally and bullying all else in the prohibition era.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

1. Freedom includes the ability to call out other people, even if it's for being against the spirit of freedom.

1. Ah, the slippery, thin ice of freedom of speech.

I don't see it as slippery at all. What would be problematic, is if Ingraham said "these people are anti-freedom, and I want to take away their ability to do that - by lawful force".

Under freedom of speech, people are allowed to be anti-freedom of speech as well. If you don't want to allow that, than you effectively become what you're accusing the anti-free speech crowd of doing. I am hyper-actively aware of that. What Science fan doesn't understand, is that's not what Laura Ingraham is trying to do here.

2. Why anyone is following her is beyond me.

2. You never know why people do what they do. I used to go gaga over the lady governor of Alaska, the one that ran for presidency. Sara something or other, if I remember right. Tapin, or Lapin, or something. Boy, is my rote memory horrible. But I did it for the right reason: she was a babe. She was HOTTTT.

I never said what you quoted me for saying, there.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

When you have a large and powerful lobby group with vast resources it's easy to see how the media can be 'persuaded' to cow tow to it, with threats of boycotts and withdrawn advertising. Newspapers have shut down for no less, hence the epidemic of forced and insincere 'apologies' we have to endure on a regular basis.

But the brunt of the grunt in largest numbers and widest breadths happen in America, you forgot to add? The Rothchildren, Konrad Black, Keef Diefenbaker, Abraham L. Ganeff, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, all old American families who made their monies illegally and bullying all else in the prohibition era.

I didn't forget to add anything. I don't think it's country-specific. 'Monies'?

[-1-]

I never said what you quoted me for saying, there.

My apologies. I got completely confused by the nested quotes. I wish I had no harm done.

[-1-]

I didn't forget to add anything. I don't think it's country-specific. 'Monies'?

Monies is the correct spelling of the plural of money. Look it up, if you like, in the Oxford English dictionary. Or the Merriam-Webster, or in the Webster. Just saying, no hard feelings.

I was about your age now, when I first learned this word, and believe me, I was just as surprised as you are now.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I didn't forget to add anything. I don't think it's country-specific. 'Monies'?

Monies is the correct spelling of the plural of money. Look it up, if you like, in the Oxford English dictionary. Or the Merriam-Webster, or in the Webster. Just saying, no hard feelings.

I was about your age now, when I first learned this word, and believe me, I was just as surprised as you are now.

I am well aware that there is such a word, but its use is quite specific. There was no reason to use it there. I don't need to look it up, and certainly not in your McDikshinree.

[-1-]

'Monies'?

Monies is the correct spelling of the plural of money. Look it up, if you like, in the Oxford English dictionary. Or the Merriam-Webster, or in the Webster. Just saying, no hard feelings.

I was about your age now, when I first learned this word, and believe me, I was just as surprised as you are now.

I am well aware that there is such a word, but its use is quite specific. There was no reason to use it there. I don't need to look it up, and certainly not in your McDikshinree.

Young Grasshopper, what word other than monies would YOU call a set or an accumulation of cash and / or other negotiable instruments easily converted into cash? Potentially even including but not limited to foreign currency.

Please supply that word here.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Money.

[Science Fan]

So, newspapers will be arbitrarily shut down if people don't like their reports? And that causes them to do what? Lie? Ingraham insulted a high-school kid, as opposed to logically addressing his arguments. Now, how is that news reporting that should be protected? We really want news people like Ingraham acting like a school-yard punkass, and behaving like an idiot? It was this childish act on her part that has caused people to boycott and companies to withdraw their support for her. If anything, such a response will be a signal to news journalists to stop acting like immature children and instead start acting like mature adults.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

So, newspapers will be arbitrarily shut down if people don't like their reports? And that causes them to do what?

Vege's point is that it would push only a select number of opinions to be considered acceptable for advertisement, and reduce any sort of honesty or intellectual diversity; Certain ideas will keep getting funded and pushed down our throats rather than discussed. It turns into a sort of 'money in politics' issue.

Ingraham insulted a high-school kid, as opposed to logically addressing his arguments. Now, how is that news reporting that should be protected?

I don't agree with what she said. But you're changing the goal post a bit, because I know you don't agree with her point, it just isn't hypocrisy. What she said shouldn't be 'protected', as I keep telling you I wouldn't want legislation about this. Culturally, people should just expect those opinions to be differentiated from her advertisements. If you want advertisement to drop their support on her show, then make her ratings drop.

We really want news people like Ingraham acting like a school-yard punkass, and behaving like an idiot?

The thing is you shouldn't get to decide what 'we' really want; The collective should get to decide what the collective wants. If you decide as an individual to take a stand against someone like ingraham then do it - don't ever watch her show again. That will directly affect her ratings (in theory) in a way comparable to your actual worth. I don't even have a problem with people trying to get other people to stop watching her show. But trying to take her ads away? That's a pretty unfair and disproportionate attempt to silence and censor her by attacking her means of income due to something she said. Your idea that laura is the one in this whole thing who is being anti-freedom is entirely misplaced - it's the boy-cotters who are being anti-free speech. I mean, as a legal technicality they're not, but they are going against the 'spirit' of free speech.

If you still think this is strictly about Laura specifically, then let me assure you this scrutiny of people's personal opinions from adverts will no doubt be used against people like you, and the ideas you ascribe to, in the future.

[-1-]

Money.

So if I gave you some bonds you'd say I gave you money.
I would say no, I gave you some negotiable instruments, or some valuables.

This answer of yours is inadequate.

Let's turn the question around.

What in your definition are the right circumstances to use the word "monies"? Please supply at least one example.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Show me a money and I will tell you.

'Monies' is a technical term used in accounting and banking to denote different types of monetary sources.
''My accountant listed and categorised all monies owed to me from multiple sources''.

[-1-]

Show me a money and I will tell you.

'Monies' is a technical term used in accounting and banking to denote different types of monetary sources.
''My accountant listed and categorised all monies owed to me from multiple sources''.

Good. Good. Very good.

Now please point out the precise difference between

"a set or an accumulation of cash and / or other negotiable instruments easily converted into cash... Potentially even including but not limited to foreign currency"
and
"different types of monetary sources".

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Show me a money and I will tell you.

'Monies' is a technical term used in accounting and banking to denote different types of monetary sources.
''My accountant listed and categorised all monies owed to me from multiple sources''.

Good. Good. Very good.

Now please point out the precise difference between

"a set or an accumulation of cash and / or other negotiable instruments easily converted into cash... Potentially even including but not limited to foreign currency"
and
"different types of monetary sources".

Now is the time to put your 'monies' where your mouth is and admit that you were wrong.