Because their argument is that diverse opinions should be tolerated. So the veracity of one particular view isn’t really that relevant. Freedom of speech doesn’t depend on the accuracy of the opinion being expressed. 1/
-
-
-
For what it’s worth, I think Williamson’s opinion that women who abort deserve to be hanged is so odious that no respectable publication should give him a forum. So I’m not defending him by any means. 2/2
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
but not a hard question
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How do you defend the indefensible?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Problems in Vichy morality.
-
Both sidesism is what sank Le Temps, when one of the sides was actual Nazis.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The right abandoned argument and replaced it with shrill tantrums about liberal bias long ago, convinced of its persistent self-evident veracity.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Interestingly, Williamson’s fawning, fact-free profile of Scott Pruitt in NRO exemplifies another dimension to the right’s inability to engage—its several thousand words of argument by assertion.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.