I posted this a ways back. The case in question was when William Blatty (author of
The Exorcist) sued the NYT for excluding his book, claiming that they were harming him economically by not putting him on when his book was selling well enough to earn him a spot. The Times' defense was that the Bestseller List was an "editorial product" and protected speech as (basically) an opinion piece. This defense held up all the way to the Supreme Court and still stands to this day.
I have no idea how something called the "Bestseller list" can be interpreted by a reasonable person as something other than "a list of best sellers," but I'm inclined to think that, like the "actual malice" standard, the courts carving out special exceptions for the press is just one corrupt institution doing favors for another (change my mind.)
Refresh my memory, but aren't the BreadTube crowd atheists or some really squishy minority religion (Islam, Judaism) if they need more intersectional Pokemon Points? They seem pretty much opposed to any kind of serious religious/metaphysical thought.
What I'm saying is that Linday shouldn't believe in souls
at all, so her getting her granny panties in a twist over the portrayal of something that she doesn't believe exists just because it acknowledges the views of people she disagrees with... christ, how self-centered can you get? It's even better when you remember that she claims to be a serious critic, but won't even engage a piece of fiction because she doesn't like how a fictional metaphysical construct is implemented. Way to do your job.
Defection cycles suck like that. The only thing worse is
not defecting, which is why the American right manages to be simultaneously immense and powerless.
If you believe Haidt's moral foundations theory, that's exactly what's happening: WEIRD liberals exist in only two moral dimensions, while conservatives (even WEIRD ones) have those two plus the remaining three/four. Basically, right-wingers can understand left-wing moral values, but the reverse isn't true (this is supported by ideological Turing tests going all the way back to the 70s.) So to people like Lindsay, a moral judgment that doesn't reference her stunted moral system looks like insanity and/or evil, which is probably one of the reasons they constantly attribute ulterior motives to people who disagree with them.