Comments (1)

All Trinitonian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • G

    gmmay70Jun 13, 2019 at 3:53 pm

    You’ll certainly not cause any defections from the Right through intellectual dishonesty and shabby rhetoric. Shortly after this article begins, you link a column you wrote about D’Souza. The first paragraph you attempt to deconstruct results from missing D’Souza’s point almost in its entirety. Rather than address the facts you omit and the claims you ignore, I’ll simply point out that you launch into refuting claims that D’Souza did not make. And here you complain of logical fallacies.

    Soon after, you raise the tired old canard of the “Party Switch” between the Democrats and Republicans – a proposition that – while easily debunked by voting data, party platforms, legislative history at the federal level, and comparative civil rights records of key party figures – is easily rubbished by the idea that the mythical party switch would place FDR in the GOP. It’s a vapid, ignorant, and tendentious effort to deflect clear historical blame.

    Thankfully, early displays of poor credibility at least save the reader time. Here, you demonstrate the same pattern of error. It is, in point of inarguable fact, that D’Souza’s remrks did not constitute “hate speech” because no such legal category exists. You erroneously claim that Viginia v. Black defines that category. It does not. This is something that doesn’t require legal specialization to know and understand.

    Though the thesis of this piece is both sound and important, you completely undermine yourself by committing the very errors for which you criticize others. Clownish absurdity indeed.

Activate Search
Deplatforming: a losing political strategy