Bret Devereaux

It’s one thing to profoundly disagree with someone. Even another if Singer’s embarrassing article was bad on its own. But this man literally had promoted the death and sexual abuse of disabled people. Specifically as well as generally. I don’t see how it can be argued that

publishing him could be in good faith.

1) As I've said, I find Peter Singer's views entirely unacceptable, as you'd expect from an old-fashioned Catholic socialist. That said, I wasn't aware (and am sorry to hear) that he *specifically* called for abuse - unless I misunderstand, you're accusing him of a serious crime?

2) I wouldn't have taken this particular article (let alone from him) myself, but I struggle to think why it should be only bad faith, rather simply a mistaken decision?

3) If we're to seriously go after institutions that give Peter Singer a pass, I'd rather we were talking about his university and major media that print him (including Literary Review, from which this article has been reprinted).

As long as we don't, condemnation of tiny volunteer online outfit, which has otherwise been doing pretty good job, especially when it's done on sheer enthusiasm, seems entirely over the top to me, and I'm not joining.

"This shouldn't have been run" seems a pretty basic and generally fair critique. I may have been uncommonly expressive with it, but then the essay was uncommonly poor. Publications are judged based on the things they run, that doesn't seem unfair.

And this isn't a small enthusiast outfit. Everyone here - the author and the editors (going by who signed their launch press release) - is a full time, tenure-track academic (except me). It seems to me that an academic venture conducted by established academics...