Comments about ‘Charles Krauthammer: Defend the dissenters — even if you disagree’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, April 13 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Hutterite
American Fork, UT

So, while the entire political process is mired in an antagonistic stalemate, society is evolving without it and 'the left' is getting things done.
Oh, and thanks for pointing out that Eich was not 'outsted'. He resigned.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

It only took the Democrats 30 years to learn this trick from the Republicans.

Wow it takes a lot of guts to write an article like this from a guy who defends positions like "pro life", "pro family" "pro growth", "pro children" etc. etc.

The Republicans are getting beaten at their own word game, plus liberals are not going to sit by and let the ignorant (and this doesn't mean reasonable discussion about reasonable issues) run the debate on facts. Mr. Krauthammer just tried it again by talking about climate science being settled. No science is ever settled even long after we know for a fact the grounding principles of a subject.

Believe as you will but we're not going to let you run policy discussions about the efficacy of evolution, climate change, and sexual attractions with 1st century logic and principles without a loud and boisterous push back.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

“ . . . more than 110,000 signatures was delivered to The Washington Post demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming . . . “ And Charles Krauthammer says these people are “Leftists.”

No Charles, these are reasonable people who do not think a serious publication should devote much space to extremist Right Wing Pseudo-Science, of the kind that proliferates on Right Wing radio.

Basically Krauthammer is whining, and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. Krathammer is obviously not a serious journalist or columnist. He’s predominantly an entertainer who amuses his target audience, “Conservatives,” by reinforcing their ridiculous prejudices. But he entertains others as well.

In my opinion, Charles Krauthammer is at his comic best when he whines, but he whines less than half of the time. Mostly, he just lashes out with confused rhetoric, and that’s entertaining too. But his whining can be hilarious, and he should modify his shtick to accentuate the whining a little more.

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

Excellent article Dr. Krauthammer and indisputable truth!

Danny Chipman
Lehi, UT

Great article.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

The left would prefer a dictatorship, where every other voice is silenced.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

Naturally, Krauthammer cherry picks situations to attack the left, leaving unmentioned the same behavior on the right, against their own, such as the firing of Guns and Ammo contributing editor Dick Metcalf and editor Jim Bequette for the offense of suggesting that there should be mandatory gun owner training.

What we're seeing is the same thing that happened after WWII when it came to criticism of Jews. Because of the Holocaust, it became very, VERY unpopular to criticize Jewish people, their cause, etc. The same thing has happened on the topic of race. Once our nation decided that it was no longer open season on blacks, use of the N-word and other indications of racism became forbidden, very quickly.

I don't see how these were examples of freedom of expression squashed as much as societal norms moving forward to a more positive America, one that left ugly discrimination in the past.

We're in the middle of another wave, right now, which explains how many Americans, and many Utahns, along with Obama, have had "evolving" views on the issue.

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

"Oppose the current consensus and you're a denier, a bigot, a homophobe, a sexist, an enemy of the people."

Yup! 100% accurate. I get called those things by the 'tolerant' crowd all the time.

But I have my guns and my religion and I plan to hold on to both regardless of the totalitarians.

BleedsBlue
Salt Lake City, UT

Gary O.
Perhaps a "serious publication" should retain the freedom and the right to determine if something is "extremist Right Wing Pseudo-Science" and worthy of publication or not.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

The left likes the elections they keep winning because the radical right is unelectable.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

The vast majority of “climate skeptics” are in fact climate deniers. If you want to understand how to tell the difference between the two, read the excellent article on this very subject by Dr. David Brin.

Regarding Mr. Krauthammer’s main point, yes, censorship is going too far, but from a scientists point of view, all this denier nonsense (with its distortions, misinformation, and flat out lies) starts to looks more and more like political motivated people wanting to proclaim – in the name of “open & fair debate” – that 1+1=3.

At what point do we as a society lose patience with the purposeful dissemination of untruths, especially when so much may be at stake?

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

Brendan Eich has every right to donate money for Prop. 8, he was practicing his 1st amendment right.

In the mean time, the staff and customers of Mozilla, they also have every right to call for Brendan Eich's resignation. They are also just practicing their 1st amendment right.

Brendan Eich has his free will to decide whether to say as CEO or not, in the end, he chose to resign by himself.

I don't see what's the fuss.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

It is amazing how the voices on the right get ahold of a talking point and chew it like a dog with a bone. The left wants a dictatorship where all other voices are silenced. You here this throughout the left, from radio pundits, to politicians, to what is the right's big thinkers like Krauthammer, to those who comment on the internet. The left wants to silence everybody!

Can anybody show me a LAW the left has tried to pass that would silence anyone? Krauthammer doesn't mention any. All he mentions is people using their freedom of expression to support their political speech.

Guess what Krauthammer, petitions are very much expressive of freedom, and they are EXACTLY the American way.

I can't believe someone complaining about petition drives. Talk about wanting people silenced. Imagine someone complaining about others expressing themselves in a most fundemental way, in an editorial claiming others want to silence people.

And you get people saying Krauthammer is revealing indisputable truth when he says liberals claim the debate is over. Please. You know what indisputable means? Unable to be challenged or denied. Precious. And Thid said this without a hint of irony.

JenicaJessen
Riverton, UT

While I often disagree with Mr. Krauthammer, in this case he's exactly right. As a society, we have to be open to multiple ideas if we hope to develop any good ones. The downside of that is that sometimes you have to put up with global-warming denial or constant complaints over the pay gap. I may not like those ideas, but if I hope for my own views to be heard I'd better not silence others.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

It is amazing how the voices on the right get ahold of a talking point and chew it like a dog with a bone. The left wants a dictatorship where all other voices are silenced. You hear this throughout the right, from radio pundits, to politicians, to the right's big thinkers like Krauthammer, to those who comment on the internet. The left wants to silence everybody!

Can anybody show me a LAW the left has tried to pass that would silence anyone? Krauthammer doesn't mention any. All he mentions is people using their freedom of expression to support their political speech.

Guess what Krauthammer, petitions are very much expressive of freedom, and they are EXACTLY the American way.

I can't believe someone complaining about petition drives. Talk about wanting people silenced. Imagine someone complaining about others expressing themselves in a most fundemental way, in an editorial claiming others want to silence people.

And you get people saying Krauthammer is revealing indisputable truth when he complains liberals claim the debate is over. Please. You know what indisputable means? Unable to be challenged or denied. Precious. And Thid said this without a hint of irony.

4601
Salt Lake City, UT

Dictatorships, left or right, have common characteristics that include silencing (monitoring) the press, suppressing debate, subsidizing their supporters through government programs, repeating lies to the press so often that we begin to believe them, using government legal resources to selectively prosecute their opposition and tax or financial laws that suppress their opponents. Mr. Obama seems to be touching all the bases.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

"Dictatorships, left or right, have common characteristics that include silencing (monitoring) the press,"

Uh. . . Nope.

"suppressing debate,"

Nope

" subsidizing their supporters through government programs,

Uh. . . Again nope

"repeating lies to the press so often that we begin to believe them,"

Not even

"using government legal resources to selectively prosecute their opposition"

Didn't happen

" and tax or financial laws that suppress their opponents."

Not even close

"Mr. Obama seems to be touching all the bases."

Well, maybe in your fantasy world. But not here in the real world.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@mark "It is amazing how the voices on the right get ahold of a talking point and chew it like a dog with a bone."

You can say that again.

@Tyler D "...read the excellent article on this very subject by Dr. David Brin."

I did, and I found it to be just another appeal to authority. He never bothers to answer any of the specific objections raised by skeptics. His article is a declaration of faith in scientists, without getting into the science.

To the wider point, why would anyone want to close down a debate they thought they were winning? It seems as though they should prefer to just win the point, if they had one. These claims of the-science-is-settled, and the-heretic-must-be-punished, and my-opponent-is-a-racist are really only admissions that their arguments are weak.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Nate, to the broader issue " why would anyone want to close down a debate they thought they were winning? It seems as though they should prefer to just win the point, if they had one."

If the other side ever listened and or had no influence in civil policies that would make sense. However that is not how things are. Case in point there is nothing more settled in fact than the age of the earth, the age of mankind, and the process of evolution yet persons of influence and power continue to call it a theory amongst many.

In fact to your broader point when ninety seven per cent or more of credible scientist agree that the climate is changing and that humans are having a major negative effect and this has been the case for decades there is little sense in spending time spinning your wheels with "skeptics" . The science of climate change is not settled because science is never settled. The point of the scientific method is to look for disagreement and questions. It's just that the 3% who claim to be skeptics aren't providing anything of worth considering.

airnaut
Everett, 00

Seriously?

If 49 out of 50 Doctor's tell you your son or daughter has cancer,
and will most certaily die if you choose to ignore it,

and 1 Doctor completely denies it,

Who are your going to believe?

The 49 or the 1?

That pretty much SETTLES it for me.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments