This is similar to judo in which you use the force of your opponent against him by constantly deflecting that force off of you and thereby wearing him down. This was also at the heart of Ghandi's Principle of Satyagraha or "truth force" usually called non-violence. One often can win an argument by simply allowing your opponent to speak. This, to my mind, is the best argument for free speech, from a utilitarian standpoint. (its as well why I don't understand the Left's giddiness about the supposed downfall of Limbaugh)
One defends his or her rights by exercising them and simply refusing to accept their curtailment. If silence satisfies our sensitivities that is all well, but it will only be a cacophony of voices rising in vociferous indignity and anger that will defend OUR liberties when WE are silenced. We depend on each other to defend each other rights, even those we disagree with. A nation of atomized individuals is an inert mass awaiting its enslavement.To betray one another to the highest bidder that promises the maintenance of order in exchange for the liberty of our political opponents will ultimately betray our own liberty. In the end that bidder will come for ours as well and then who will speak out for us?? We must have each others backs, as they say, even those we might detest.
As a general rule the music I post(if not lyrically then melodically) and my personal writings are things that are genuinely part of my philosophic outlook.
It irritates me when people automatically assume that a blog is like a bumper sticker or a t-shirt in which every little item within it is a pure representation of the thoughts or views of the author. To me, that would be to imprison oneself in an iron casket impenetrable to the giving and living oxygen of others minds, hearts and thoughts.
To that end, here's a writer I often disagreed with but learned much from......