I've heard of Fisking, but I haven't read the original article that inspired the term until now. I don't think "factual errors" is a correct representation her

I've heard of Fisking, but I haven't read the original article that inspired the term until now. I don't think "factual errors" is a correct representation here, considering that the original article[1] made no accusations of factual impropriety. Nor was there question w.r.t. the facts as Fisk represented them. The original rebuttal centered purely on alleged reverse racism on Fisk's part - that he received a beating at the hands of Afghan refugees and chose to blame their circumstances rather than the individuals. The event itself and the facts surrounding it were not questioned - only Fisk's stance on it. The main thrust of the article does not dispute any facts, or representation of facts. Fisk's piece is criticized as "leftist pathology", and the opening of Fisk's article is described as "one of the defining quotes of the idiotic left". This does not strike me as a "fact-based, point by point rebuttal". I'm familiar with the argument-form that fisking refers to, but the article that inspired the term seems to be a shockingly poor example of it. Anyways, considering that Fisk is an unapologetic member of the far Left, and Sullivan an unapologetic member of the far Right, I'm not convinced that "fisking" is a credible criticism of Fisk himself. If anything, Sullivan's original article that criticizes Fisk shows that his facts are on the money, it's his stance on them that's problematic. [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20040416224040/http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2001_12_09_dish_archive.html#7786744 http://web.archive.org/web/20040416224040/http://andrewsulli...