Respectfully, cause I mostly like Jussim, you don't need context to know he's wrong in his reading. It's inescapable.
The paragraph he highlights ends with an urge for the government to investigate "those responsible". For what? You have two choices: the threats/violence or the misinformation. Jussim says to let them off easy and let the ambiguity go towards responsible referring to the violence only.
Except even if you do that, the paragraph is still urging government investigation of "bad speech". Because, remember, the violence is rooted in intentional misinformation.
The structure is ambiguous, but the practical request doesn't change in either possible meaning.
I'm going to have to make some changes for this and another reason that I just realized. We're in the land of Marcuse's 'Repressive Tolerance' here. From Lee's straight forward reading, and that of the news sources, it separates out Rufo's work (to be policed by social media) and the violent people responding to it (to be policed by the FBI and DOJ).
But the Critical Theory tradition doesn't separate Rufo's work from the violence-causers. So both Rufo and the people calling in bomb threats count as "those responsible."
In one world, which is supported by SCOTUS decisions, they're separate, and Rufo's case goes into the category of the legality of "bad speech," where he's probably fine. But in another world, Rufo's speech is the soil from which violent people emerge, and hence it's reasonable to involve the corporate-state to stop him (censorship and/or prosecution.)
Appreciate it. I think every angle on something like this presents differently. As you detailed in part 2, trying to read it as if everyone is reasonable classic liberal adults is very different from other perspectives - especially if you are Rufo and your perspective lets you feel the dagger slide between your ribs.
Respectfully, cause I mostly like Jussim, you don't need context to know he's wrong in his reading. It's inescapable.
The paragraph he highlights ends with an urge for the government to investigate "those responsible". For what? You have two choices: the threats/violence or the misinformation. Jussim says to let them off easy and let the ambiguity go towards responsible referring to the violence only.
Except even if you do that, the paragraph is still urging government investigation of "bad speech". Because, remember, the violence is rooted in intentional misinformation.
The structure is ambiguous, but the practical request doesn't change in either possible meaning.
You're right.
I'm going to have to make some changes for this and another reason that I just realized. We're in the land of Marcuse's 'Repressive Tolerance' here. From Lee's straight forward reading, and that of the news sources, it separates out Rufo's work (to be policed by social media) and the violent people responding to it (to be policed by the FBI and DOJ).
But the Critical Theory tradition doesn't separate Rufo's work from the violence-causers. So both Rufo and the people calling in bomb threats count as "those responsible."
In one world, which is supported by SCOTUS decisions, they're separate, and Rufo's case goes into the category of the legality of "bad speech," where he's probably fine. But in another world, Rufo's speech is the soil from which violent people emerge, and hence it's reasonable to involve the corporate-state to stop him (censorship and/or prosecution.)
Appreciate it. I think every angle on something like this presents differently. As you detailed in part 2, trying to read it as if everyone is reasonable classic liberal adults is very different from other perspectives - especially if you are Rufo and your perspective lets you feel the dagger slide between your ribs.