The Atlantic explains why it hired a columnist who wants a quarter of American women put to death

So… The Atlantic hired Williamson to be their pet Nazi, and think that over time they can house train him.

Edited to add: maybe the editors should read up on Franz von Papen.


Ugh this doesn’t surprise me from these guys lately. Mostly what I see in purported liberal outlets right now are repetitive stories covering the trump sideshow or bullshit centristism. They’re so scared about being called liberal that they are just steadily marching to the right like the democrats have been for the past 25 years. It’s almost like they fanned the flames of the “alt right” monster to sell papers and are now being consumed by the fire…


yeah but idealistic blogs gonna be idealistic. Like I’m sure he’ll change & if he doesn’t maybe some of his steady readers will. (… heh)

That’s one type of liberal. Here’s the kind I prefer to be:


Is this the same Kevin Williamson who’s been accused of being an anti-white racist?

Do they still have a print edition ?


Talking about conservatives, I heard George F. Will is supposed to be the in-house conservative at the WaPo?

But that guy? That’s no conservative. That’s an asshole. Plain and simple. And if you want shit on the floor, you hire one of those. Those papers, @Keith_McClary, won’t suffice. They never do.




What’s so asinine about Golberg’s explanation is that he doesn’t claim Williamson repudiated any of the horrible things he’s said. Why are you looking for “signs of growth”? Why not just ask him if he still thinks women who’ve had abortions should be hanged? What is the possible justification for failing to ask that question?


"Ah! Fuck this and fuck that
Fuck it all tha fuck out of the fucking brat
She don’t wanna a baby that looks like that
I don’t wanna a baby that looks like that.

Body I’m not an animal
Body, an abortion"

Well, someone had to post it.

1 Like

The Atlantic was a very fine journal. ‘Was’ seems to be the operative word now.


Until they start hiring serious Marxists as opinion columnists, their claims of balance are bullshit.

The US media actively works to keep the Overton Window distorted to the right; they represent the interests of their owners.


“I know you are, but what am I?” has gone from being a playground response to the most overused trope in criticism.

A much simpler answer is that many of these opinions that “christians”, far right, alt-right, neo-Nazis, and Republicans regularly spout are incredibly difficult for many people to empathise with. What this columnist spouts is anathema to most people. It’s easier for us to imagine it’s a posture than believe it’s the truth in much the same way as people play along with pathological liars rather than call them out on their serial unbelievable lies.

Alternatively, if you feel the “I know you are but what am I?” response is critical, biting, and clever it applies to this conservative critic who is obviously projecting his own feckless morality free posturing onto liberals.

(IANAL - I Am Not A Liberal)


That’s how Trumpkins characterize his attacks on the poor.


Typical Abrahamic thinking, refusing to acknowledge any moral system other than your chosen version of a canon most of you pick and choose from anyway, twist, don’t hold your leaders to, preach out of both sides of your mouth, or just plain ignore when you want to break your own rules. Just because we didn’t pull our rules out of the ass of an imaginary friend doesn’t mean we don’t have any.


It became clear when The Atlantic recently decided to remove reader commentary that they were going to add more inflammatory content. They want the clicks but they don’t want to hear from their readers about the nonsense that gets printed. It’s too bad because there is some good writing collected there (Ta-Nehisi Coates being a prime example), and I definitely don’t mind seeing different viewpoints presented cogently (I’ll read David Frum also, although we rarely agree). I’m working hard to stay out of my liberal bubble.

Unfortunately, contrarian writing for the sake of bullshit controversy is a waste of time. I’ve removed The Atlantic from my list of sites.


That’s a pretty ridiculous false equivalency.


Did someone not ask the poor poor man the right questions? about his view on womens agency?



There mere act of shilling such ideologies with such fervor is enough for me to consider any such person to be dead to me. If they truly didn’t believe those things that’s actually worse because it shows that they are morally corrupt and are the kind of person that can never be trusted or taken at their word because they’re liars. If they truly did believe those things then at least i can say that they are honest… reprehensible but forthcoming, and still dead to me.

Now which does this writer want to be? A morally corrupt opportunist and liar or an honest racist misogynist?