Andrew Sullivan write a lot about free speech but becomes indifferent to the issue when it involves someone who won't answer his questions about Black penises. An investigation:https://jeetheer.substack.com/p/andrew-sullivans-free-speech-hypocrisy?r=bh54&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=twitter …
-
-
Justice Thomas already argued this with Anita Hill.... and I think he lost

-
Did he? You just referred to him as Justice Thomas.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Welcome to the dish…
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The original title of the Villarosa piece was "How False Beliefs in Physical Racial Differences Still Live In Medicine."
-
And it reads consistent with the title
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
She also wrote: "Rather than conceptualizing race as a risk factor that predicts disease or disability because of a fixed susceptibility conceived on shaky grounds centuries ago, we would do better to understand race as a proxy for bias, disadvantage and ill treatment."
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The essay claimed that seeing any physical differences in populations was a function of racism. (There are two significant corrections appended to the piece.) Its flat assertion that difference in lung capacity is a total fallacy is not what the science says.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Villarosa's claim about there being no physical differences in skin between populations is also false.
-
I'm curious what the exact claim is, here. Are you sure you aren't paraphrasing?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.