Leftists will decide what's acceptable discourse, and what's not. The goal will be to suppress views deemed unacceptable before they see the light of day, lest such opinions become "normalized," and thus legitimizing the representative "acts of terrorism" inherent the election of Donald Trump.
Seriously, talk about some special snowflakes at the Los Angeles Times. The paper's editor-in-chief and publisher, Davan Maharaj, said the letters did not meet the newspaper’s standards for "civil, fact-based discourse" and shouldn't have been published:
“Letters in The Times are the opinions of the writers, and editors strive to include a range of voices. But the goal is to present readers with civil, intelligent, fact-based opinions that enlarge their understanding of the world,” Maharaj said. “These letters did not meet that standard.”And get this, "The Travel section plans to print letters of response in the Dec. 18 edition."
And that's a bad thing?
No, that's a good thing.
Someone expresses an idea and people respond. If you don't like an idea, say so. That's how speech works. That's how debate works. It doesn't work by deeming a particular idea offensive "uncivil" discourse and banishing that view from the pages of the newspaper. It doesn't work by consigning a disagreeable idea as beyond the realm of controversy and engagement. The reaction to the letters is totalitarian, but then, leftists are totalitarian.
Read the letters here, "Were the stories about Japanese internment during World War II unbalanced? Two letter writers think so."
I don't think they're offensive, frankly. Americans thought Japanese citizens were a threat to national security, and they did something about it. The country survived, and a good thing too.
RELATED: See Erik "Homosexual Lumberjack" Loomis, at Lawyers, Guns, and Money, "What on Earth Was the Los Angeles Times Thinking?"
Special snowflakes over there at LGM as well, with an emphasis on "special."
BONUS: See Michelle Malkin, "IN DEFENSE OF INTERNMENT."
And here's Michelle's book, at Amazon, In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror.