1. To judge by the right-wing freakout over Kevin Williamson you'd think that firing writers over extremist views was unheard of. But in fact Williamson's previous home National Review has repeatedly done that.
-
-
7. Remember when this happened there as a huge outcry about the death of tolerance and free speech. LOLhttps://twitter.com/LCS__AUTiger/status/982365367841542144 …
Show this thread -
8. Would the people who say "Atlantic shouldn't have fired Williamson" also say "National Review shouldn't have fired Joseph Sobran and John Derbyshire"? If not, why not?
Show this thread -
9. The argument for Williamson is he's supposedly a brilliant stylist. De gustibus non est disputandum. But Joseph Sobran was also a very stylish writer, one of the very best National Review has ever had.
Show this thread -
10. True, Sobran was an anti-Semite & a racist. But he wasn't fired for that. He was fired for criticizing Buckley. How is that defensible? Where was the movement calling for justice for Sobran?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Objectionable "view"? A mealy-mouth characterization of "... ought to be hanged." That is beyond objectionable. It's unworthy of a journalist in a society deep in struggle with jingoist hatred & bigotry, & echoes the attitude of too many to be discounted as rhetorical hyperbole.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think the argument I have seen hinges on the fact that the Atlantic occupies some status as a general interest, centrist political magazine and as such must have conservative voices (and Frum apparently doesn't count -- told that explicitly here on twitter by NRO editor).
-
It is revealing. Conservative magazines will never have liberal voices. And other magazines must have conservative views without question.
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.