Now, you'd *think* this argument about proportionality is at least conceding that the crazy students are wrong on the merits. But if you look closely, it never does. The argument is that the proportionality makes the students correct. And that's the POV that troubles me!
-
-
What would be the other point of making that statement at that moment, then? What thought was being conveyed?
-
“Her actions were defended by pundits.” That seems to have dwindled to “One pundit not mentioning her said something not sufficiently hostile.” As I say, thin gruel as analysis of a press trend.
-
You didn't answer my question. What did Cobb and Gay mean, if not to defend Click?
-
Tbh I didn’t seen any defense of her. That it’s somehow hidden between the lines is hard for me to credit. So I think the idea that “pundits” rushed to her defense seems not justified by the evidence. We disagree which is fine.
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.