Let me play Devil's Advocate here. Perhaps you're taking something with many shades of gray, and unjustly trying to flatten it into black and white. ... >>>>"

Let me play Devil's Advocate here. Perhaps you're taking something with many shades of gray, and unjustly trying to flatten it into black and white. ... >>>>"But the comments comparing women with mentally handicapped and children…" He's not comparing women with children or the mentally handicapped. Or at least he isn't intending to. He's comparing strategies for relating to various groups of people. Many readers are misconstruing this. Two pieces of context to keep in mind: 1. He writes in the same piece, "I’m not saying women are similar to either group. I’m saying that a man’s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar." 2. He retracted this post and isn't standing by it. Probably because a large portion of his audience is pulling out a message he didn't intend to communicate, and doesn't really agree with. >>>>"Well... That (ahem) stands for itself." Maybe not to everyone. More than anything, I wonder what events in his life shaped this perspective. Also, saying something "stands for itself" is a lame rhetorical device. You pass off the burden of making your argument to some other function. Instead of saying something's obvious, why not spell out your thoughts explicitly for those who don't jump to the same conclusions? >>>>"That shit is just indefensible." To say that any kind of speech is indefensible is a comment about yourself and your own morality, not about the speech itself. (I'm paraphrasing a quote by Steve Pavlina about whether a 45 lb dumbbell is 'heavy' or 'light'.) Another idea, often raised by freedom of speech activists: Controversial speech is the only speech that needs to be defended. Nobody tries to suppress speech that everyone agrees with. ... Again, that was Devil's Advocate. Just a few things to think about.