I don't think emerging orthodoxies shouldn't be challenged. What I object to is being called one of the "useful idiots of big business," having the history of the anti-state left being erased, and having serious, intelligent arguments ignored or treated as reflexive anti-Trumpismhttps://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1065389049853153280 …
-
-
Replying to @NathanJRobinson
Would never accuse you individually of rejecting on principle challenges to emerging orthodoxies. But I have detected that tendency elsewhere, on a pretty large scale, and it’s the kind of obstinacy that can easily congeal into stagnation/false consensus
3 replies 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
Why would Angela refuse to engage seriously with the actual morally serious arguments of the "open borders left"? Why would you say that we're afraid of the arguments because we know we can't answer them? We do have answers, but Angela didn't quote them or interview anyone.
3 replies 2 retweets 61 likes -
Replying to @NathanJRobinson
I don't want to speak for her, or how she chose to structure her essay. Of course there are morally serious people well-equipped to make opposing arguments, and they should -- rather than resort to overly-personal ostracization, which seems to have been the prevailing response
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
I believe arguments should be responded to, and I'll respond to this piece. But people are perfectly justified in being angry after being dismissed as "useful idiots." Angela is the one who initially used unfair, insulting language instead of fairly engaging with the other side.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes
There's no doubt that she wrote it in part as a provocation. So I understand the anger on that level.
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.