Thread by @NGrossman81

My website @ArcDigi was the subject of some controversy yesterday over abortion, platforming, and allyship, which makes this a good time to tell you what the site is and is not; why I'm proud of Arc, my fellow editors, and our writers; and what this all says about politics today.

The controversy centered on this article by @SouthernKeeks, who is pro-life, and a thread our editor in chief @bernybelvedere wrote wrestling with the difficult philosophical question "is abortion murder?"
2/x
arcdigital.media/when-it-comes-…

Some out there in Twitterland didn't like that we ran an article by a pro-life writer and denounced the entire site.
Here's an example.
Set aside the "right-wing outlet" part which isn't accurate. The accusation that @ArcDigi "is no ally" is... true.
3/x

https://twitter.com/KimberLofgren/status/1122593025073602560

Arc is not aligned with any particular political cause. We value truth, dialogue, and intellectual pluralism, which is political in a bigger sense--especially nowadays when those things are under assault--but we don't aim advance any single issue viewpoint or political party.
4/x

Nothing inherently wrong with a publication aligning with a party or cause. Some do it well, some who do it produce crap.
But there are a lot of those. @ArcDigi exists because we think there isn't enough these days that facilitates real dialogue.
5/x

https://twitter.com/bernybelvedere/status/1122635036052869120

We've published pro-choice and pro-life arguments, from both religious and secular perspectives.
It's not some squishy "both sides" centrism. All are fact-based, argue in good faith, and offer interesting angles.
@ArcDigi does that with many issues. Truth's found in dialogue.
6/x

The controversy revealed an odd conception of "ally."
Pro-choice people think Texas punishing women who get abortions would be wrong. Kim Ross, who is pro-life, thinks Texas punishing women who get abortions would be wrong.
Good opportunity to align, right?
7/x

But some use "ally" to mean "person who agrees with me on everything (and if they don't agree on something, shut up)."
That's not only a flawed conception, it's terrible strategy.
8/x

Many partisans indulge a fantasy of vanquishing their enemies forever.
Not happening. You won't deplatform millions. Embracing that scorched-earth strategy confines you to a bubble, reduces understanding, and prevents success on areas of agreement.
9/x

https://twitter.com/ManInTheHoody/status/1122719373678899200

Some partisans, on abortion and other issues, want to "heighten the contradictions" and don't like seeing examples of reasonable--though passionate--disagreement. Undermines the effort to make everything us-them.
10/x

We think it's valuable to see the best version of arguments, provided the positions are philosophically reasonable and based on truth (i.e. difference of opinion, not agenda-advancing lies).
And hey, if you disagree, it's still smart to understand your adversaries' position.
11/x

Finally, @ArcDigi takes responsibility for what we publish, but not for what the people we publish write elsewhere. We wouldn't associate with absolutely anyone who can make one good argument. But we're not @nytimes, ordering writers to hide non-Arc opinions on social media.
12/x

At @ArcDigi you'll see multiple perspectives.
Maybe you'll change your mind. Maybe you'll engage smart criticism and emerge with your position strengthened. Maybe you'll find a "US-USSR vs. Nazis"-style ally on one issue (without which you'd fail).

https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1122643666303160321

13/x

The internet is vast. If you only want publications and people who exclusively repeat your positions back to you, perhaps while denigrating those who disagree, that's not us.
If you want dialogue that both reinforces and challenges, follow @ArcDigi.
Or hey, read both.
(END)