3 ms·

My issue with this is that it is completely political. The National Review isn't against what happened to Eich because of "conformity," but because they happen

My issue with this is that it is completely political. The National Review isn't against what happened to Eich because of "conformity," but because they happen to agree with his political views. Want proof? In 2011, a Notre Dame Board of Trustees member was pressured to resign because of her donations to a pro-choice group. Not only did the National Review not have a problem with her resignation, they published a feature criticizubg Notre Dame at length[1] for appointing her to begin with and in general not upholding pro-life only Catholic values. So you'll forgive me if I think this article is bullshit and its arguments completely specious. I await your downvotes. [1]: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269303/more-cracks-golden-dome-george-weigel http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269303/more-cracks-go...

camus2 13y ago
Yes,these guys are hypocrites, but that's all you'd expect from bigots... they are just "my way or the highway",and see injustice only when it's convenient.
yypark 13y ago
The National Review may be on this side purely due to politics, but many others (For instance gay-marriage supporter Conor Friesedorf) are on this side due for open political discourse and anti-comformity. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas... I completely agree that a lot of the rhetoric is completely tribal (this side is right, the other side is wrong, now let's sling mud and accuse the other side of X!). But some people (in fact, a lot of Hacker News) does seem to get beyond this.
- filmgirlcw 13y ago
  There is absolutely a non-political argument to be made, you are absolutely correct. I guess what I'm saying is that this article is not making that argument. At all.

camus2 13y ago

Yes,these guys are hypocrites, but that's all you'd expect from bigots... they are just "my way or the highway",and see injustice only when it's convenient.

yypark 13y ago

The National Review may be on this side purely due to politics, but many others (For instance gay-marriage supporter Conor Friesedorf) are on this side due for open political discourse and anti-comformity. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas... I completely agree that a lot of the rhetoric is completely tribal (this side is right, the other side is wrong, now let's sling mud and accuse the other side of X!). But some people (in fact, a lot of Hacker News) does seem to get beyond this.

filmgirlcw 13y ago
There is absolutely a non-political argument to be made, you are absolutely correct. I guess what I'm saying is that this article is not making that argument. At all.