,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
I admire this article and the civic attitude it represents. But I feel like it avoids something important: what does one do when some of your fellow citizens do not just disagree with you, but believe in - and advocate - things that are genuinely contemptible? /1
It's one thing not to make normal political disagreements into grounds for contempt. In that case, sign me up for Brooks's call for kindness. I will admit I am first among sinners on that. But at some point, contemptible ideas must be treated with open contempt and shame. /2
I mean, when someone wears a t-shirt that implies lynching journalists, or explains why Roy Moore really isn't such a bad guy, or that Jews aren't patriots because they're Jews - I think contempt is a normal reaction that kicks in as part of a healthy allergy to such talk. /3
So, sign me up for more civic virtue, kindness, and grace. But I never signed up for living in a morally relativistic, no-contempt, no-judgment society. Who would? Maybe I didn't understand the piece, which is always possible, but I think Brooks elided this problem. /4x
