The problem isn't simply that they have done lesser 'crimes' it is also that by a mere accusation people are having their lives, careers and reputation completely destroyed. Due process is simply being thrown out of the window. And she acts as if the consequences aren't big because they never went to jail over it.
It's the paradox that the "court of public opinion" doesn't have to follow concepts like innocent until proven guilty because it has no power, while they at the same time ascribe a ton of importance to public opinion and are well aware that it can destroy careers.
Yeah. I notice that internal inconsistencies seems to be a common thing with modern leftists these days.
You know, I was thinking about this the other day, and couldn't quite remember why. It has just come to me what it was. It was those Beefy posts.
This one in particular:
Thought policing of bigotry isn't a bad thing. Lol at saying me not wanting people to be bigots is worse then being Farron a actual bigot
I mean there is quite a few things wrong with this post, but I found the internal inconsistencies of his viewpoint quite extraordinary. First of all, everything he said here, the exact opposite is true. Farron believed that in a theological sense homosexuality is a sin. Farron is not technically a bigot though because bigotry requires an
intolerance of, which considering he regularly voted for LGBT rights it seems obvious that he quite clearly
tolerated the LGBT community. However Beefy quite clearly is a bigot because he would not afford Farron the same courtesy Farron affords others. Think about that for a second... Farron would actively fight for the rights of the LGBT community
despite believing in a theological sense that homosexuality is a sin, while it seems Beefy would actively pursue stripping Farron of the right to even hold that opinion in the first place. Thought policing isn't bad, he says. That is so Orwellian.
The internal inconsistencies of that stance are incredible. He is everything he accuses others of being but he doesn't see it because, well, I think his thoughts are clouded by the notion that what he is doing is just and virtuous. I think that is why it is so insidious. I don't think the internal inconsistencies even came into it. He is right because he is morally right.
The point is, I think that is the problem: I think their judgment is too clouded by the notion of being morally virtuous for them to notice the flaws in their thinking.
