USA Universities learn the consequences of disrespecting free speech

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 12/03/2016 05:23 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 05:16:56AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
>> On 12/03/2016 04:50 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>>
>>>   SKQ - reaming it with Javascript and pop-ups enabled
>>>
>>> Who woulda thought?
>>>
>>> At least we learn something today - for those who're a bit on the slow
>>> side at least - web page pop-ups ACTUALLY still exist!!!
>>
>> My point is not that the pop-up is there. My point is how such a
>> one-sided, deceptive message discredits everything on that site.
> 
> OK, so your first position that the pop-up had anything to do with what
> you were saying, is now retracted by you.
> 
> I accept your retraction.

The manner in which it was said did play a role. A banner off to the
side talking about the boycott (which I was aware of) would have been a
bit more reasonable. Yes, I'm equally annoyed about it when progressive
news sites do the same thing, but usually there's some justification to
it (i.e. Nestlé and this urge of theirs to bottle up water, especially
in places like Michigan not too far outside of Flint).

>> Especially when shoved in the reader's face like that.
> 
> Or not?
> 
> So a 'news website' is talking about a boycott of Kellogs.
> 
> And, in your illustrious opinion, this 'news' is "one-sided" and
> "deceptive".

Breitbart is calling for the boycott themselves, just because Kellogg's
pulled their ads. They are making it sound like Kellogg's is attacking
the company, even though their PR guy clearly said the move is not
political in nature.

It's funny how both Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart seem to have problems
keeping advertisers. Pop quiz: what do they have in common?

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn at rushpost.com>
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com