>Even if you're right, these sort of boilerplate talking points don't serve good conversation This criticism makes no sense. If these were "boilerplate talking

>Even if you're right, these sort of boilerplate talking points don't serve good conversation This criticism makes no sense. If these were "boilerplate talking points" they would be somewhat well known and you would probably be at least vaguely aware of their veracity. >I hope it's clear that this is not a defense of Summers Explicit condemnation of the sharing of a series of contextual facts about a public figure under discussion in the name of the vaguest of vague ideals - "good conversation"? It actually does seem like a defense of Larry Summers.