Personal attack is okay.. this is the internet...

Yet another sad FB commentary ensued after a friend posted this article  from HUFFPO: I'm capturing the conversation here so I'll remember it, and read it.. repeatedly.. reminding myself that personal attack/judgement is the last refuge of a lost debate, or an ill equipped debater. -- whether it is in person or on the internet matters not...

Highlights from the conversation are below...

JEFF: Freedom of speech much? Article misrepresents the entire affair and would be better targeted at the Huffington Post or NPR.. 

"When a journalist takes a job at the Huffington Post or NPR, does the agreement state he or she must throw out all objectivity and spin every word to support the "liberal" agenda?" -- YES and if they speak out about a personal fear and demonstrate honesty and transparency in a "liberal politically correct" society, they will be summarily fired.. despite there true beliefs, body of work... reality.. etc.. Clearly freedom is not free and speech is only allowed if it takes the "correct" position..


COMMENT FROM FRIEND paraphrased: 
you are biased against NPR, probably never listen... amazes me that a "centrist" can be so biased and not see it... if you use term "liberal agenda" or "homosexual agenda" or even "conservative agenda" causes me to wonder if they have an open mind on issues. such people tend to believe in conspiracy theories...


Diversity of perspective, religion, etc.. is exactly what Freedom of speech protects.
why the personal attack? Why.. because I expressed freedom of speech?

I targeted the article.. you targeted me. 
IMHO, NPR folks should support Williams rather than attacking him.. I wrote that publicly when the story first broke. This article misrepresents everything that happened. There is the truth.
I am indeed a centrist. libertarian minded, compassionate conservative. but labels are useless. I don't stereotype. It is irrational and illogical in a free society.
FYI, I listen to NPR regularly...along with watching FoxNews, and even MSNBC occasionally.. I read the NY Times online as well as WSJ, and get tons of news from Politico, The Week, and many other Inet sources.
... in reality "your bias is showing" I totally support Williams..the HuffPo article does not.... the firing was ridiculously biased.. NPR's all things considered, even marketplace, and the regular programs are tremendously biased, but interesting and informative. the HuffPo article was yet another example of very poor journalism/commentary... was really effective at neither.

"At least I admit my bias: I am for personal freedom (especially in the religious sphere), personal responsibility, and a government that supports the common good." -- by that definition we should agree.. however in reality, we clearly define "personal freedom" very differently.


"We also define "the common good" quite differently.
I "attacked" because of your use of "liberal agenda," and said why. And that's not because I'm 'politically correct,' either; it's because such buzzwords typically reflect a narrow mindset to me. And you will notice that I also included "conservative agenda" in that list, so as not to slight the narrow-minded liberals.
I called you biased against NPR because your statement seemed to reflect that. (Look at the wording.)
After that, I went general: I used the word "someone." I did that on purpose; it applies generally, not just to you. Yes, you used "liberal agenda" and that makes me think you are like the other people that use that phrase; perhaps you aren't. Do you believe any conspiracy theories?
Listen: this is the internet. Don't take things so personally. Just vote your conscience.

Personal attack rhetoric is never appropriate. The "internet" is not an excuse for inappropriate behavior. I and everyone else should be allowed to use generally accepted ideas as a lexicon for discussion without invoking an attack or such dismissive judgement. -- My lesson today on war & peace addresses this directly: http://ow.ly/32aZC

Personal attack rhetoric is divisive and disrespectful of others' freedom of speech and ideology. Judging others' based on only a few words and attacking is exactly what NPR did and what HuffPo and MSNBC do on a regular basis..
Simply put. Actions of attack based on earthly judgement are part of the problem not the solution.

Taking things personally when the attack was personal is appropriate... on inet, or face to face.. I won't expect you or ask you to act one way or the other in the future.

I said you were showing bias. Do you deny such bias? How else might your post be taken? How should I have interpreted that post?
Why did you take the rest of the post personally? Could it have hit too close to home?
Are these questions angering you? WHY?

I admit bias. People who don't admit SOME bias tend to be kidding themselves.

More personal judgement... Mild attack...
For the record...I am biased. Never said I wasn't. More people should act on their own and stop telling others how to act, think, or believe. Personal attack rhetoric is the last defense of a lost debate or an ill equipped debater. Debate101
I believe in your right to judge others and me. I don't think you should as I explained earlier. I won't be baited into a useless personal "defense" which only damages a relationship. It isn't worth it.
I'm not angry. I'm sad that this conversation is over without any progress.