https://www.pilotonline.com/opinion/vp-ed-letf-0928-20190928-dxrmlrybijb6hft5sbjzcmx2py-story.html
This letter is unremarkable, except that…
The impulse to limit speech and public dialogue is mildly odd. And yet there seems to be a trend. I recently heard a phrase I hadn’t heard before, “cancel culture.” The idea behind it seems to be that cancelling other people’s speech or access to speech venuess is a desirable thing to do, depending on the person being cancelled.
If cancel culture is in fact a trend, it is not a happy one.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Letters like this are a perfect example of why we still need online commentary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think the proposal is to limit speech so much as to avoid overload. You put 10 candidates on a stage, give them questions with a short time to respond, and you create sound-byte city. Given an incumbent who is only capable of 192-character character assassination tweets and you suddenly make the election more fair than it needs to be by bring it to his level.
LikeLike
The letter is about two-person presidential debates—not 10-person primary debates.
LikeLike
either way
LikeLike
This proposal is not a case of cancel culture. It is a proposal to prevent viewing Trump as he is: a bully with no real plans except to attack, personally, not on policy, his opponents. His plans are as much pipe dreams as some say the GND is. Great and less expensive health care. Infrastructure improvements. Easy to win trade wars.
I say let the debates go forward and see Trump as a non-leader, a bully. And the best way to counter a bully is to challenge him on his weaknesses. An easy task for anyone with a brain.
LikeLike