Conor Friedersdorf

@conor64 ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated No

Last Checked March 17, 2022

Created

Tue Mar 08 05:05:18 +0000 2022

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

This example works. If classmates told you, "You're wrong to be antiwar, Hussein is a moral monster and the moral thing to do is remove him from power," that's disagreement. Whereas if they said, "How dare you oppose this righteous war, you unpatriotic terrorist sympathizer..." — PolitiTweet.org

Posted March 8, 2022

Preceded By

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@harrislapiroff If it seems like that to you, then you didn't read carefully enough, because there is a passage that directly refutes your characterization. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted March 8, 2022

Followed By

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

...you could rightly object that they were eschewing substantive debate in favor of speech-chilling personal attacks and shaming, and lament that in doing so, they were harming everyone's ability to get closer to the truth through the exchange of ideas. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted March 8, 2022