Cutting funding to silence editorials is not conducive to anything but the short term emotional validation of those doing the cutting.

I know, right?

Because they’re professionals who do their job?

internet injustice

I am just saying that people can express outrage with a publication that gives a platform to repulsive ideas, without it devolving into a free speech issue.

Don’t back off now, Darlin’. Not when you’ve gotten me all hot and bothered.

Do Depends undergarments qualify as underpants?

I’m pretty sure you haven’t expressed a single thing in this conversation that wasn’t a petty, condescendingly incorrect assumption.

I said it wasn’t inherently a bad idea,

Koba, now 36, has told Deadspin that she only stayed quiet all these years because Johnson paid $230,600 to get her to never talk about their dealings again except to a “a priest, a therapist, or a lawyer.” She says that she broke that agreement because she got sick of “protecting” him.

As already demonstrated, you don’t seem to understand the meanings of the things that you say.

I’m not sure “disagreeing about whether overtime is due” constitutes “stingy.”

An employee “should” be paid whatever the service is worth to the employer. Period.

Given your desire to stop people from saying things you don’t like, I would say no, you’re not able to function properly. Proper functioning in the face of opposing ideas is one of the following:

Yes clearly the Nordic countries are doing terribly. I wonder if they view Americans’ dedication to presenting every horrible, racist, xenophobic “counterpoint” as infantile? I sure do.

You’re kind of a prick.

Agreed.

Maybe younger generations are moving to a more European style of thought when it comes to speech-that’s not inherently a bad idea.

too few arguing for the right of minority students to not be accosted by racist opinions

Guys, the outrage machine is going to destroy us all.