“Read Bret Stephens with an open mind” is incel code for “this is a garbage take but I agree with it, and if you do not read it and accept it as an alternate opinion equally important to your own, you are a snowflake who can’t handle intelligent DEBATE ME BRO!!1”
-
-
-
The white male “intellectual conservative” badge of privilege asserts that their opinions deserve a platform, deserve attention, and deserve respect, simply by existing. Grow up you weird little dickwaffles.
-
Even more infuriating than their perspective of entitlement to a platform and attention is the constant validation we see everywhere. Trump receiving free media coverage during the 16 campaign. Richard Spencer getting national TV interviews.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
He lost me at: “Falsely accusing a person of sexual assault is nearly as despicable as sexual assault itself.”
-
Which part lost you: That false accusations are “despicable,” or the limiting qualifier “nearly as”?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
No, sorry, no, not even a little, no. The time to listen to this side is long over.
-
Agree. Stop telling me to try to understand the perspective of old white men who voted for Trump. I get it, I just don’t care. I’m tired of trying to negotiate my rights in relation to theirs when they never do the same for me. I am done. Burn it all downpic.twitter.com/tkzDzjv4Ey
-
I love this reply very much
-
It really is. Burn it, Ruthie.pic.twitter.com/gtfqBP1Xt2
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I read it with an open mind but marveled at his ability to write it with his eyes so firmly closed to the evidence, the lies and the hypocrisy on the right. Whether or not Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault his barefaced lies about his past behavior should be disqualifying.
-
"evidence"
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
No thanks. Reading an apology of victim shaming is really not the way I wanted to start my day.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I read it with an open mind. Still nothing matches Judge Kavanaugh’s disqualifying opening remarks at last Thursday’s hearing. It’s not believable that he is a non-partisan “balls and strikes umpire” when he says this is “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.” SCOTUS? I think not.
-
Has anyone even asked what he meant by "what goes around, comes around"?
- 2 more replies
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.