This is what I come to HN for. To be called a peddler of anti-freedom rhetoric for dreaming of freedom, as a reply to single word quote. Because, you know, you're not allowed to dream if those dreams have at some point been "reality."
They are reality, not at some point but right now and for generations (depending on where you live).
I'm not talking about you, but the rhetoric, the ideas. But another part of the rhetoric is to shift the conversation to being a victim, and away from the merits of the ideas so one doesn't have to talk about them. Heck, looking back, I even took trouble to say it wasn't about you.
If you want to insist you embrace those idea, that's your problem. Or you could be an independent thinker who examines ideas on their merits. That would be the core of HN.
>I'm not talking about you, but the rhetoric, the ideas. But another part of the rhetoric is to shift the conversation to being a victim, and away from the merits of the ideas so one doesn't have to talk about them. Heck, looking back, I even took trouble to say it wasn't about you.
A survey of the 'rhetoric' (which you've somehow shifted to even though it's quite obvious you are personifying the rhetoric to reflect the person) of Friedman's life and the people espousing his 'rhetoric' finds your accusation to be blatantly and utterly false. Nothing about Friedman's 'rhetoric' was focused around shifting away from the merits of the ideas. I recommend watching "Free to Choose" series where you will learn almost none of the 'rhetoric' is focused around 'victimhood' and almost entirely around how to deal with the circumstances he's recognized.
This 'victim' peddling of your 'rhetoric' assessment is purely aimed at assassinating Friedman's assessment with a thought terminating dismissal as appeal to victimhood, not grounded in truth nor is it even aimed at understanding what was said.
