Dan Jurgens responds to one of Ron Marz's anti-conservative insults
Here's something I almost missed, a 2-in-1 beginning with Marz minimizing an issue at hand, and Jurgens offering a response:
The topic Marz alluded to was an editorial cartoon by Chris Britt in the Bucks County Courier Times where several black children are drawn asking Santa to protect them from the police. The police in the Philadelphia area were angry, as were plenty of other readers, and the biggest question here is: are they allowed to take offense, or do only leftists like Marz have that privilege? Many of the police officials in my native district - and that includes many black officers too - work very hard to ensure the safety of minorities and tons of other residents in the USA, and like the NYPD, they too were hit very hard by the recent attacks on police officials. And it was extremely offensive that Mr. Britt painted all police staff with the same brush, and shameful of Marz to imply nobody's allowed to take offense or reserve the right to boycott the newspaper for such a brainless cartoon. And he was somebody who wanted to boycott Orson Scott Card over his opinions! That cartoon is insulting to the memory of many police staff who fell victim to wanton violence, including the 2 NYPD officers murdered last month.
Jurgens responded to Marz with some clever maneuvering, letting know he understands the cartoon was just a one-sided assault on public servants who work hard to ensure the safety of the same people who published such junk. Most fascinating: from what I can tell, unlike how he acts towards the rank-and-file, Marz made no attempt to lash out at Jurgens or insult him for defending the police, which compels me to ask - why does Marz seem to respect Jurgens, but cannot extend the same respect to people he considers "lowly peasants"? Yet the fact he didn't respond at all to Jurgens could suggest he harbors resentment of him too, but keeps it to himself, reserving all his vitriol and invective for people outside the industry proper.
While we're on the issue, veteran actor Robert DeNiro's urging donations to the families of the murderered NYPD officers (Hat tip: Big Hollywood). Perhaps Marz would like to follow DeNiro's example to show he's got a heart?
Update: also, here's a screenshot of a retweet by Marz I'd saved but forgot to post until now:
Yes, with that RT, Marz let know he follows the narrative that Cheney is nothing more than a war criminal. And I guess he doesn't think Saddam was a savage, and doesn't care that many Iraqis hated Saddam, and don't miss him. He really should wake up and smell the coffee.
@ronmarz You're right. Free speech has to include mindless, idiotic speech as well. But, it follows the narrative of the day, so why not?
— Dan Jurgens (@djjurgens) December 19, 2014
The topic Marz alluded to was an editorial cartoon by Chris Britt in the Bucks County Courier Times where several black children are drawn asking Santa to protect them from the police. The police in the Philadelphia area were angry, as were plenty of other readers, and the biggest question here is: are they allowed to take offense, or do only leftists like Marz have that privilege? Many of the police officials in my native district - and that includes many black officers too - work very hard to ensure the safety of minorities and tons of other residents in the USA, and like the NYPD, they too were hit very hard by the recent attacks on police officials. And it was extremely offensive that Mr. Britt painted all police staff with the same brush, and shameful of Marz to imply nobody's allowed to take offense or reserve the right to boycott the newspaper for such a brainless cartoon. And he was somebody who wanted to boycott Orson Scott Card over his opinions! That cartoon is insulting to the memory of many police staff who fell victim to wanton violence, including the 2 NYPD officers murdered last month.
Jurgens responded to Marz with some clever maneuvering, letting know he understands the cartoon was just a one-sided assault on public servants who work hard to ensure the safety of the same people who published such junk. Most fascinating: from what I can tell, unlike how he acts towards the rank-and-file, Marz made no attempt to lash out at Jurgens or insult him for defending the police, which compels me to ask - why does Marz seem to respect Jurgens, but cannot extend the same respect to people he considers "lowly peasants"? Yet the fact he didn't respond at all to Jurgens could suggest he harbors resentment of him too, but keeps it to himself, reserving all his vitriol and invective for people outside the industry proper.
While we're on the issue, veteran actor Robert DeNiro's urging donations to the families of the murderered NYPD officers (Hat tip: Big Hollywood). Perhaps Marz would like to follow DeNiro's example to show he's got a heart?
Update: also, here's a screenshot of a retweet by Marz I'd saved but forgot to post until now:
Labels: comic strips, Europe and Asia, good writers, islam and jihad, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, terrorism, violence
"Everybody's for free speech until they get their widdle feelings hurt."
Actually, that statement would be accurate if you substituted "liberals" or "Progressives" for "everybody." People like Marz invoke the First Amendment when condoning everything from kiddie porn to death threats. Then they want to prosecute you for "hate speech" if you grumble about your high taxes and increased insurance rates.
And pro-police groups have a right to organize a boycott over a cartoon that offends them, the same as gay rights advocates have the right to boycott Orson Scott Card's publisher.
"Freedom of Speech" means that the government can't impose censorship. It does not protect anyone from boycotts by individuals or by private organizations.
And a boycott is not censorship. The people who take part in the boycott are not preventing anyone from making a speech or publishing an editorial, they are just refusing to subsidize it.
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:08 AM