To sum up, the flaws in Will’s column are real enough, or so it seems to me. But they’re well within the normal range of wrongheaded things that newspaper columnists inevitably write if they do the job twice a week for years. What distinguishes Will’s column is the fact that he addresses a sensitive, fraught topic. His critics’ unstated belief is that because he dared to do so with inadequate sensitivity, they’re justified in twisting his words in the most provocative way possible, all the while striking an exaggerated pose of righteous outrage.
Rage Against the Outrage Machine - Politics - The Atlantic
Friedersdorf, go home. The point is over there somewhere.
For the record, I also don’t think we should strawman people’s shitty opinions no matter how shitty they are. I also think we should acknowledge that EVERYBODY STRAWMANS, not just people who are “outraged,” “righteously” or otherwise. I notice that Friedersdorf did not examine any responses to George Will that he does not consider strawmans, thus sorta implying that none exist. I would happily send him my own piece on the subject if I thought he gave an actual fuck about what people think.