What would you think of a writer spent an entire article slamming another writer he’s never met, speculating on that other writer’s psychological motivations based on stereotypes, guesses, and a whole host of information he does not have?
What if that writer said of the other writer and his work:
- stupid question
- smuggles in facts not in evidence
- written to reassure true believers … that their position is unassailable
- on a site not exactly for intellectuals
- I suggest he’s lying
- He is guilty of … bias confirmation [sic]
- Any answer dismissed so he can pretend he’s never had an answer
- Goes into debate with his mind closed to all opposing answers
- Sole judge … so he can never be proven wrong
- He doesn’t want an answer
What if the writer in question accomplished those ten slams in just five paragraphs?
What if that writer admitted he was guessing on a good portion of it?
Would that writer be considered a good representative of tolerance? How about non-judgmentalism? How about trying to reduce hate?
Now ask yourself, who is it in this controversy that accuses the other side of being haters, and how does that square with what you read here?