"Kevin Williamson was fired from the Atlantic for an old tweet in which he suggested that women who procure abortions should receive the same punishment given to murderers. Well, like millions of Americans, Williamson believes abortion is murder; QED. You might disagree with his premise or his conclusions, but the sentiment itself is not exactly fringe stuff, or particularly surprising coming from a socially conservative commentator."
"The framing was not "why DiMino is wrong"; it was, "Can you believe DiMino said this stuff?" This is not in fact persuasion. Presenting the things someone says in a public forum and saying, Can you believe this person thinks this? does not win arguments. It will rile up the people who already agree with you and are hostile to the object of the attack, but this is itself risky business if the positions are not so outre as advertised. In that case, DiMino was in the end confirmed."
American public discourse often sensationalizes ordinary mainstream statements as 'gotchas,' treating predictable conservative or liberal positions as scandalous. Outlets across the political spectrum engage in that framing, amplifying outrage over standard policy views like opposition to abortion or support for tax increases. Such presentation targets the speaker's character rather than engaging substantive arguments and therefore does not persuade opponents. This approach mobilizes like-minded audiences but risks normalizing the criticized positions when they are not extreme. Examples include attacks on Kevin Williamson and Michael DiMino; DiMino’s nomination proceeded despite the uproar. Similar tactics recently targeted Jeremy Carl.
Read at The American Conservative
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]