Opiniatrety

Wait, wait. If it's a bad idea (and I see you say it "can be" a bad idea) to engage politely with those people, are you implying it's a good idea to engage rudely/take up arms against them, or it's a good idea not to engage with them at all? I think as a philosopher you should advocate engaging with them civilly. And haven't you done so?

Basically I agree with Fontana Labs on the national conversation. And Mark Kleiman. I think we should say, "You have just advocated genocide. You can't be serious. If you want a discussion, come back when you're serious."

See Yglesias's new post. Telling that in his new post Podhoretz uses the phrase "victory at all costs," an utterly absurd notion and one that he should already have disclaimed when he said that there are some things we're not willing to do.

This reminds me of something Bernard Williams says in Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, that we would not feel easy working with someone who (talking about a difficult business deal) says "Of course we should rule out from the beginning having our competitors murdered." Williams says that option should not have come into hand to be ruled out. The proper response to Podhoretz is, "You're still not serious. Come back when you're willing to talk about options we should actually take, instead of weaselling around about 'Marquis of Queensbury rules." Which is a decidedly inaccurate way to describe widespread torture, or driving an eighth of Lebanon's population from their homes." Perhaps with a few expletives thrown in.

Tangent: That very Marquess of Queensbury was the father of Alfred Douglas, Oscar Wilde's (harrumph) friend "Bosie," and so was responsible (along with Wilde himself) for ruining Wilde.