Also, do I remember when Sullivan used to be not completely intolerable, but just a little unaware, or was he always just that obtuse?
He's always been like this. There was a particularly infamous bit where in response to some bit of racial criticism, he said that he had a good working relationship with Ta-Nehesi Coates as an editor - to which Coates basically responded with at the time, he was a struggling freelancer, so he had to bite his tongue - but now that he's a successful author, MacArthur Genius grant recipient, and achieved his childhood dream of working for Marvel, he can be open about his very low opinion of Sullivan.
Man, I always remembered Sullivan as being a decently anti-Bush/Cheney war on terror guy. But I went back and read up on some of his history and past statements, and yikes.
Its kind of funny though that Douthat basically gets a pass because despite being wrong all the time he's an actually good writer who generally makes serious attempts at understanding things. Weiss and Stephen's greatest sin is just constantly bitching at a reddit level of writing proficiency.
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
The issue at hand is that the idea of what is "objective" is anything but.
BIPOC reporters are told all the time that they "aren't bring objective" when it comes to reporting on policing or social injustice. Because they aren't framing it from the perspective of a wealthy White person.
Hell, journalists aren't allowed to just, run full quotes of what Trump actually said, because presenting too much of what he said is seen as being unfair/biased because it would make Trump look bad.
Reporting the truth should not be called into question because it "seems biased."
Fun note: when FC4 came out, I asked a fairly large site if I could review it from the perspective of a subcontinental person from America. They rejected the idea because they said the review sounded too political and their (white) writer could offer an "objective" perspective.
This Imran Khan is a long-time games journalist, not to be mistaken with all the other Imran Khans.
Thomas Chatterton Williams, one of the drafters of the Harpers letter said in an interview with Rolling Stone today that he wanted to include Glenn Greenwald but was "outvoted" by others involved.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Of course he did.
+2
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Thomas Chatterton Williams, one of the drafters of the Harpers letter said in an interview with Rolling Stone today that he wanted to include Glenn Greenwald but was "outvoted" by others involved.
But that can’t be! We were told that judging the letter by a the inclusion of a few questionable people was wrong!
It’s funny though because as bad as GG is there are definitely worse than him who were still included.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Seen the right-wing circuit, anybody that isn't hustling and self-promoting 24/7 (think Cernovich or Coulter) is a mouthpiece for rich donors that do things like buying them articles on the NYT. For example, is incredibly obvious that Shapiro is an AIPAC mouthpiece.
Thomas Chatterton Williams, one of the drafters of the Harpers letter said in an interview with Rolling Stone today that he wanted to include Glenn Greenwald but was "outvoted" by others involved.
And by this admission, we have tacit approval of every single signer's views by... well, who ever knew who was signing and also vetoed GG.
Their fig leaf of libertine speech advocacy is torn away even harder than it already had been.
Being fired for clear plagiarism is now somehow cancel culture on some parts of the internet, which is exactly why being specific with what the heck you mean when talking about cancel culture is.
Being fired for clear plagiarism is now somehow cancel culture on some parts of the internet, which is exactly why being specific with what the heck you mean when talking about cancel culture is.
Or this is yet another demonstration of bad faith by a community that has never argued in good faith about this.
Red Bull has fired two top executives in the US who had lobbied for more diversity in the company and were blamed for the leak of a letter that criticized its 'public silence' on Black Lives Matter.
North America chief executive Stefan Kozak and North America president and chief marketing officer Amy Taylor were let go, the energy drink company said Tuesday.
While Red Bull employees in the US have been pressing for the company to be more vocal about racism, Red Bull's billionaire CEO Dietrich Mateschitz is a Donald Trump admirer who has spoken out against 'political correctness'.
The 76-year-old tycoon also owns a media firm which has been criticized for giving a platform to far-right activists in his native Austria.
Sources told Business Insider that Red Bull's top executives in Austria are thought to have fired Kozak and Taylor in 'retaliation' for the leak, although no official reason was given for their departure.
The letter signed by more than 300 employees had criticized the company for 'saying nothing' amid the global anti-racism protests and 'abandoning the communities we claim to support and foster in their time of greatest need'.
Both Kozak and Taylor have pushed for more diversity and inclusion but Taylor was 'met with opposition' when she called for the company to take a more public stand on racism, The Wall Street Journal reports.
The slide shows a distorted map from the viewpoint of an ignorant US consumer. “America!!! We’re #1!!!” is emblazoned across the United States, while an arrow pointing to the Caribbean says “cruise ships go here.” Canada to the north is labeled “Uninhabited.” Mexico and South America are marked “coffee comes from here I think.”
Across the Atlantic, Europe is labeled “p—ies” and Africa is marked “zoo animals come from here.” Farther east, the Middle East is labeled “evil doers” with an arrow pointing to the region saying “bombs go here.” Russia is “Communists,” while China was labeled “they make our stuff.” Japan has an arrow pointing to it, saying: “TVs and cameras.”
Australia was labeled “kangaroos” and Antartica was “cold.” An oblong landmass that could be Greenland or the Arctic Circle is labeled “Santa!”
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
The Intercept was, well I don't want to say hard because it was wholly deserved, but they were pretty hard on Weiss and she's nothing if not petty.
it's funny because Greenwald is one of the few free speech absolutists who actually walks the walk
I don't have much patience for him anymore, generally, but not including him here does a lot to advance the argument that the whole thing is just a bit of grievance-airing
Red Bull has fired two top executives in the US who had lobbied for more diversity in the company and were blamed for the leak of a letter that criticized its 'public silence' on Black Lives Matter.
North America chief executive Stefan Kozak and North America president and chief marketing officer Amy Taylor were let go, the energy drink company said Tuesday.
While Red Bull employees in the US have been pressing for the company to be more vocal about racism, Red Bull's billionaire CEO Dietrich Mateschitz is a Donald Trump admirer who has spoken out against 'political correctness'.
The 76-year-old tycoon also owns a media firm which has been criticized for giving a platform to far-right activists in his native Austria.
Sources told Business Insider that Red Bull's top executives in Austria are thought to have fired Kozak and Taylor in 'retaliation' for the leak, although no official reason was given for their departure.
The letter signed by more than 300 employees had criticized the company for 'saying nothing' amid the global anti-racism protests and 'abandoning the communities we claim to support and foster in their time of greatest need'.
Both Kozak and Taylor have pushed for more diversity and inclusion but Taylor was 'met with opposition' when she called for the company to take a more public stand on racism, The Wall Street Journal reports.
The slide shows a distorted map from the viewpoint of an ignorant US consumer. “America!!! We’re #1!!!” is emblazoned across the United States, while an arrow pointing to the Caribbean says “cruise ships go here.” Canada to the north is labeled “Uninhabited.” Mexico and South America are marked “coffee comes from here I think.”
Across the Atlantic, Europe is labeled “p—ies” and Africa is marked “zoo animals come from here.” Farther east, the Middle East is labeled “evil doers” with an arrow pointing to the region saying “bombs go here.” Russia is “Communists,” while China was labeled “they make our stuff.” Japan has an arrow pointing to it, saying: “TVs and cameras.”
Australia was labeled “kangaroos” and Antartica was “cold.” An oblong landmass that could be Greenland or the Arctic Circle is labeled “Santa!”
They also fired the Austrian guy who made the slide and insisted on showing it after the US team repeatedly told him he shouldn't, apparently.
Might be more generic 'how dare you make us look bad' firings than 'fire the SJWs' regardless of the CEOs politics.
Alt-right sources are loving it either way, because of course they are.
Cohen just filed a lawsuit, claiming that Barr/Trump had him sent back to jail because he refused to kill the book he's publishing due to the same supposed NDA that was thrown out for Mary Trump's book.
Free speech is for free people and free speech is what free people determine it to be. This is incredibly obvious if none of your speech has ever been protected by any principle or promise.
He defended slavery and opposed the notion of human equality. But he is not our enemy.
What. How do you cancel a person who has been dead for thousands of years.
Also, Aristotle was a shit philosopher.
More to the point, philosophy as a field is notorious for its issues with diversity, sexism, and other bigotries. There's a long and ongoing discussion that the field holding up the traditional major thinkers with their well known biases as a central pillar has and continues to push out women and minorities from the field.
Cohen just filed a lawsuit, claiming that Barr/Trump had him sent back to jail because he refused to kill the book he's publishing due to the same supposed NDA that was thrown out for Mary Trump's book.
The judge ordered him released this morning, finding that that government had no basis for its restriction besides retaliation.
Remember when it was mentioned that Rowling sues people to shut down their speech? Here's another example
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/website-for-teens-the-day-agree-payout-and-apology-over-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-story/
"The article “Potterheads cancel Rowling after trans tweet”, published on 10 June, compared the author to the artist Picasso, who celebrated sexual violence, and the composer Wagner who had racist and anti-Semitic views."
"“The article was critical of JK Rowling personally and suggested that our readers should boycott her work and shame her into changing her behaviour,” it went on."
And for that they were sued, made to pay her, and forced to print a retraction. Free speech for Rowling to slander people, no free speech to respond to her behavior.
Remember when it was mentioned that Rowling sues people to shut down their speech? Here's another example
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/website-for-teens-the-day-agree-payout-and-apology-over-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-story/
"The article “Potterheads cancel Rowling after trans tweet”, published on 10 June, compared the author to the artist Picasso, who celebrated sexual violence, and the composer Wagner who had racist and anti-Semitic views."
"“The article was critical of JK Rowling personally and suggested that our readers should boycott her work and shame her into changing her behaviour,” it went on."
And for that they were sued, made to pay her, and forced to print a retraction. Free speech for Rowling to slander people, no free speech to respond to her behavior.
UK libel law is a horrendous cluster fuck that is more focused on protecting reputations than stopping defamation. It's part of why the SPEECH Act was passed in the US - people were venue shopping in the UK to win judgements they would then demand US courts enforce.
Remember when it was mentioned that Rowling sues people to shut down their speech? Here's another example
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/website-for-teens-the-day-agree-payout-and-apology-over-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-story/
"The article “Potterheads cancel Rowling after trans tweet”, published on 10 June, compared the author to the artist Picasso, who celebrated sexual violence, and the composer Wagner who had racist and anti-Semitic views."
"“The article was critical of JK Rowling personally and suggested that our readers should boycott her work and shame her into changing her behaviour,” it went on."
And for that they were sued, made to pay her, and forced to print a retraction. Free speech for Rowling to slander people, no free speech to respond to her behavior.
UK libel law is a horrendous cluster fuck that is more focused on protecting reputations than stopping defamation. It's part of why the SPEECH Act was passed in the US - people were venue shopping in the UK to win judgements they would then demand US courts enforce.
Even taking that into account, if you listen to JK Rowling's comments about how she should be able to speak, you'd think she would be against any sort of legal leverage against speech.
She's doing the classic "I got mine fuck you" thing. Claiming to believe in one thing but ABSOLUTELY acting against it. She has the money and platform to sue people and be immune from it if they try the same on her.
JK Rowling is a piece of shit and a bigot.
+16
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Arguing that we shouldn't study Aristotelian philosophy because he couldn't conceive of a world without slaves and is therefore problematic makes about as much sense as denouncing pre-enlightenment peasants' revolutions because all they did was install another monarch.
Arguing that we shouldn't study Aristotelian philosophy because he couldn't conceive of a world without slaves and is therefore problematic makes about as much sense as denouncing pre-enlightenment peasants' revolutions because all they did was install another monarch.
You're mostly arguing against a straw man here.
+5
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
He defended slavery and opposed the notion of human equality. But he is not our enemy.
What. How do you cancel a person who has been dead for thousands of years.
Also, Aristotle was a shit philosopher.
More to the point, philosophy as a field is notorious for its issues with diversity, sexism, and other bigotries. There's a long and ongoing discussion that the field holding up the traditional major thinkers with their well known biases as a central pillar has and continues to push out women and minorities from the field.
Yeah, some people say that, but some people say a lot of things. What empirical research has been done so far on trying to understand the causes of philosophy's demographics, which mostly focuses on women, does not seem to support the hypothesis that teaching classical male sexists like Aristotle is pushing women out. That is, the only actual interventional study I'm aware of that addressed this directly was done at Georgia State University, and it found that requiring a higher proportion of women authors on introductory undergraduate syllabi did increase perceptions of gender balance (that is, students registered the difference), yet it did not increase female students' willingness to continue in philosophy. This study is limited insofar as the increase was from an average of 10% to at least 20% (ranging 20-30% of authors), which may not be adequate to disrupting male schemas if they are indeed a causal route. Yet there is no other study which demonstrates an effect, so the evidence that we have is, so far, of no effect. (The same study found that female and male students both viewed their instructors as accessible and as treating students fairly across demographic lines).
It's extremely easy to speculate about the causes of demographic differences in a field. People with an axe to grind about the canon will often focus on that--often as a not-so-subtle Trojan horse for redirecting funding and prestige resources to them and their friends, because surprise surprise it turns out that the new canon is going to be exactly the thing they wrote their (not very good) PhD on. At the same time, people with a sunnier view of the status quo in the discipline will tend to emphasize possibilities which essentially imply no one is doing anything wrong--for instance, evidence that people in general, but especially women, just don't respect philosophical methodology that much, and that they prefer observation-driven teamwork over solitary analysis. They'll also point to evidence that women in the field are not disciminated against in certain highly professionally relevant respects, for instance, job market data showing that new female PhDs tend to need one fewer publication to get hired than new male PhDs (philosophers publish very little, so a difference of 1 publication at early career is quite large). Of course, there are also competing interpretations of this data too; for instance, some people argue that women publish less but that what they do publish is higher quality work, because they have less excessive self-confidence.
Arguing that we shouldn't study Aristotelian philosophy because he couldn't conceive of a world without slaves and is therefore problematic makes about as much sense as denouncing pre-enlightenment peasants' revolutions because all they did was install another monarch.
Also we don’t teach Aristotle because he was right we teach him to show a progression of thought from ancient times to modern thinkers. Like. We teach Thomas Aquinas too! And its not like a lot of modern thinkers are all up for his ideas.
But its hard to understand where we are if you don’t understand how we got here
+10
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
WSJ News department really would like the Editorial Department to, you know, keep it's opinions clearly labeled and maybe, just maybe, push back when facts don't match the opinion being expressed.
Opinion department throws huge fit and accuses the News of trying to "cancel" them.
In some ways the left has become even more conformist than the right. The liberal New Republic has less viewpoint diversity than the conservative National Review — a reversal of historical patterns. Christopher Hitchens was one of the great essayists in America. He would be unemployable today because there was no set of priors he wasn’t willing to offend.
Literally South Park style "offends both sides" garbage.
And as one journalist pointed out, there are thousands of journalists who are actually unemployed right now
Now the boundaries of exclusion are shifting again. What we erroneously call “cancel culture” is an attempt to shift the boundaries of the sayable so it excludes not only conservatives but liberals and the heterodox as well. Hence the attacks on, say, Steven Pinker and Andrew Sullivan.
In some ways the left has become even more conformist than the right. The liberal New Republic has less viewpoint diversity than the conservative National Review — a reversal of historical patterns. Christopher Hitchens was one of the great essayists in America. He would be unemployable today because there was no set of priors he wasn’t willing to offend.
Literally South Park style "offends both sides" garbage.
And as one journalist pointed out, there are thousands of journalists who are actually unemployed right now
Now the boundaries of exclusion are shifting again. What we erroneously call “cancel culture” is an attempt to shift the boundaries of the sayable so it excludes not only conservatives but liberals and the heterodox as well. Hence the attacks on, say, Steven Pinker and Andrew Sullivan.
Andrew "race science" Sullivan
I always find the fellation of Hitchens to be another head-scratcher, given his decline (which just happened to correspond with greater participation by women and minorities in the letters.) I'll also never understand the virtue of offense for offense's sake, either.
In some ways the left has become even more conformist than the right. The liberal New Republic has less viewpoint diversity than the conservative National Review — a reversal of historical patterns. Christopher Hitchens was one of the great essayists in America. He would be unemployable today because there was no set of priors he wasn’t willing to offend.
Literally South Park style "offends both sides" garbage.
And as one journalist pointed out, there are thousands of journalists who are actually unemployed right now
Now the boundaries of exclusion are shifting again. What we erroneously call “cancel culture” is an attempt to shift the boundaries of the sayable so it excludes not only conservatives but liberals and the heterodox as well. Hence the attacks on, say, Steven Pinker and Andrew Sullivan.
Andrew "race science" Sullivan
I always find the fellation of Hitchens to be another head-scratcher, given his decline (which just happened to correspond with greater participation by women and minorities in the letters.) I'll also never understand the virtue of offense for offense's sake, either.
The defenses of Hitchens and Sullivan have the "They are fun at cocktail parties" reek about them. Elite journalism is a small club of chummy, mostly white people, and their defense of these bigots just exposes how white supremacy works in those institutions.
It's no surprise that Ta-Nehisi Coates had to wait until he was an established name before he said anything even vaguely critical of Sullivan.
Press Sec. Kayleigh McEnany: "Paw Patrol, a cartoon show about cops, was canceled. The show 'Cops' was canceled. 'Live PD' was canceled. Lego halted the sales of their Lego city police station."
It is inexcusable that McEnany does not know what Paw Patrol is about.
When the White House is complaining about cancel culture, you know it is a completely worthless term.
Posts
No hes basically always been a monumental caliper-wielding shithead
He's always been like this. There was a particularly infamous bit where in response to some bit of racial criticism, he said that he had a good working relationship with Ta-Nehesi Coates as an editor - to which Coates basically responded with at the time, he was a struggling freelancer, so he had to bite his tongue - but now that he's a successful author, MacArthur Genius grant recipient, and achieved his childhood dream of working for Marvel, he can be open about his very low opinion of Sullivan.
Indeed. A very direct example:
This Imran Khan is a long-time games journalist, not to be mistaken with all the other Imran Khans.
But that can’t be! We were told that judging the letter by a the inclusion of a few questionable people was wrong!
It’s funny though because as bad as GG is there are definitely worse than him who were still included.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
The Intercept was, well I don't want to say hard because it was wholly deserved, but they were pretty hard on Weiss and she's nothing if not petty.
And by this admission, we have tacit approval of every single signer's views by... well, who ever knew who was signing and also vetoed GG.
Their fig leaf of libertine speech advocacy is torn away even harder than it already had been.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
This guy has 607K subscribers on Youtube.
Being fired for clear plagiarism is now somehow cancel culture on some parts of the internet, which is exactly why being specific with what the heck you mean when talking about cancel culture is.
Or this is yet another demonstration of bad faith by a community that has never argued in good faith about this.
Oh and there's also this leak of a slide on a Red Bull internal presentation:
it's funny because Greenwald is one of the few free speech absolutists who actually walks the walk
I don't have much patience for him anymore, generally, but not including him here does a lot to advance the argument that the whole thing is just a bit of grievance-airing
They also fired the Austrian guy who made the slide and insisted on showing it after the US team repeatedly told him he shouldn't, apparently.
Might be more generic 'how dare you make us look bad' firings than 'fire the SJWs' regardless of the CEOs politics.
Alt-right sources are loving it either way, because of course they are.
Cohen just filed a lawsuit, claiming that Barr/Trump had him sent back to jail because he refused to kill the book he's publishing due to the same supposed NDA that was thrown out for Mary Trump's book.
Also, Aristotle was a shit philosopher.
More to the point, philosophy as a field is notorious for its issues with diversity, sexism, and other bigotries. There's a long and ongoing discussion that the field holding up the traditional major thinkers with their well known biases as a central pillar has and continues to push out women and minorities from the field.
The judge ordered him released this morning, finding that that government had no basis for its restriction besides retaliation.
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/website-for-teens-the-day-agree-payout-and-apology-over-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-story/
"The article “Potterheads cancel Rowling after trans tweet”, published on 10 June, compared the author to the artist Picasso, who celebrated sexual violence, and the composer Wagner who had racist and anti-Semitic views."
"“The article was critical of JK Rowling personally and suggested that our readers should boycott her work and shame her into changing her behaviour,” it went on."
And for that they were sued, made to pay her, and forced to print a retraction. Free speech for Rowling to slander people, no free speech to respond to her behavior.
UK libel law is a horrendous cluster fuck that is more focused on protecting reputations than stopping defamation. It's part of why the SPEECH Act was passed in the US - people were venue shopping in the UK to win judgements they would then demand US courts enforce.
CQ Reporter
I'm starting to think Tom Cotton might not actually be a principled advocate of the free exchange of ideas.
She's doing the classic "I got mine fuck you" thing. Claiming to believe in one thing but ABSOLUTELY acting against it. She has the money and platform to sue people and be immune from it if they try the same on her.
JK Rowling is a piece of shit and a bigot.
You're mostly arguing against a straw man here.
Yeah, some people say that, but some people say a lot of things. What empirical research has been done so far on trying to understand the causes of philosophy's demographics, which mostly focuses on women, does not seem to support the hypothesis that teaching classical male sexists like Aristotle is pushing women out. That is, the only actual interventional study I'm aware of that addressed this directly was done at Georgia State University, and it found that requiring a higher proportion of women authors on introductory undergraduate syllabi did increase perceptions of gender balance (that is, students registered the difference), yet it did not increase female students' willingness to continue in philosophy. This study is limited insofar as the increase was from an average of 10% to at least 20% (ranging 20-30% of authors), which may not be adequate to disrupting male schemas if they are indeed a causal route. Yet there is no other study which demonstrates an effect, so the evidence that we have is, so far, of no effect. (The same study found that female and male students both viewed their instructors as accessible and as treating students fairly across demographic lines).
It's extremely easy to speculate about the causes of demographic differences in a field. People with an axe to grind about the canon will often focus on that--often as a not-so-subtle Trojan horse for redirecting funding and prestige resources to them and their friends, because surprise surprise it turns out that the new canon is going to be exactly the thing they wrote their (not very good) PhD on. At the same time, people with a sunnier view of the status quo in the discipline will tend to emphasize possibilities which essentially imply no one is doing anything wrong--for instance, evidence that people in general, but especially women, just don't respect philosophical methodology that much, and that they prefer observation-driven teamwork over solitary analysis. They'll also point to evidence that women in the field are not disciminated against in certain highly professionally relevant respects, for instance, job market data showing that new female PhDs tend to need one fewer publication to get hired than new male PhDs (philosophers publish very little, so a difference of 1 publication at early career is quite large). Of course, there are also competing interpretations of this data too; for instance, some people argue that women publish less but that what they do publish is higher quality work, because they have less excessive self-confidence.
Overall, Morgan Thompson has a Philosophy Compass article overviewing various explanations for the gender gap in philosophy. Note the recurring theme that there are many potential explanations, existing research is limited, and that much more high-powered replications and meta-analyses are needed.
Socrates and Plato and Thomas Aquinas were also totally okay with slavery.
I hope they don't turn a gaze towards Immanuel Kant and his outstanding racism.
Or Friedrich Nietzsche and his near character-defining hatred of women.
With that said, I would contest the claim that Aristotle was a shit philosopher.
Also we don’t teach Aristotle because he was right we teach him to show a progression of thought from ancient times to modern thinkers. Like. We teach Thomas Aquinas too! And its not like a lot of modern thinkers are all up for his ideas.
But its hard to understand where we are if you don’t understand how we got here
I would argue that Socrates was the first philosopher to get canceled.
Opinion department throws huge fit and accuses the News of trying to "cancel" them.
Sometimes it feels like the newspapers are trying to kill themselves through sheer stupidity like this.
Edit: neutral = down the middle is poisonous thought
And as one journalist pointed out, there are thousands of journalists who are actually unemployed right now
Andrew "race science" Sullivan
I always find the fellation of Hitchens to be another head-scratcher, given his decline (which just happened to correspond with greater participation by women and minorities in the letters.) I'll also never understand the virtue of offense for offense's sake, either.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The defenses of Hitchens and Sullivan have the "They are fun at cocktail parties" reek about them. Elite journalism is a small club of chummy, mostly white people, and their defense of these bigots just exposes how white supremacy works in those institutions.
It's no surprise that Ta-Nehisi Coates had to wait until he was an established name before he said anything even vaguely critical of Sullivan.
When the White House is complaining about cancel culture, you know it is a completely worthless term.