In response to an article in which liberals defended their mildly violent protest in which they prevented a Trump supporter from speaking at their university lead me to respond:
The problem with freedom of speech is that it means freedom of speech for the people whose speech you despise. I support freedom of speech, not its suppression.
My friend M toughtfully responded:
Me too Jim. But this is indeed a tough call... and I believe it's the second time he's cancelled a speech because of protestors; if not him it was someone like him. So who's in the right? He had the right of free speech, but so did the protestors...
So trump threatens to pull federal funding from the school?! It certainly was not the school's fault! trump is all powerful, or so he thinks...
I agreed with her point, but added:
Let me go to extreme focus, meaning let's look at it much more extreme but somewhat similar case so as to throw light on this one. It is reported that at one point after a meeting with "Bomber" Harris, who planned the terror bombings of German cities in retaliation for similar attacks by the Nazis, Churchill asked him, "Are we beasts?"
My answer is, yes, you were beasts. It was wrong for the Nazis to do it and it was wrong for us to do it.
There was actually a plan pushed by some in Washington that after World War II Germans be limited to a smaller number of calories than required for human health. The point being that half starved Germans can't start another world war. Decency ruled the day, so the Germans are among our best allies today. The horrific war crime committed by the French and British after World War I in which they deliberately continued to starve Germans after the Armistice is little known now, but was one of the most important bases for the rise of Hitler and the start of World War II.
We are in not in a fake culture war but a real war for fact, science, reality, and common decency. I don't want us to use that as an excuse to abandon the moral high ground.