Charleston Daily Mail fires writer who called Michael Brown an animal that was put down

[cheapdate]

28. I think I'm justified.

What was said was more than simply "unfortunate" and demands a much more forceful repudiation than what was given.

"...in our view"? Holy Crap! As if there's a reasoned, principled position where "a dangerous thug who needed to be put down like a rabid dog" is a morally justified perspective that deserves some kind of place in public discourse?

Bullshit. I'm a huge fan of civil debate. Civil debate requires at least that we recognize the right of different opinions to engage in the public sphere. But there's a limit. Some ideas are simply "beyond the pale" and have no place nor deserve any right to be heard.

My disgust is first and foremost directed toward the cretin who wrote those words, but the paper's "apology" didn't go nearly far enough.

I'd guess they either half-way agree with sentiment if not the choice of metaphor, or they wanted to carefully apologize without offending the part of their readership who wholeheartedly agreed with it, Hell Yeah!

This is dangerous kind of talk and it should be condemned in no uncertain terms.

I stand by my post.