Responding to Helen , Conor fails to acknowledge the distinction between “critiquing an argument” and “writing a hit piece”, or at the very least implies that the two phrases may be used interchangeably.
It’s funny, I thought Helen’s post made it pretty clear that she was not objecting to changing one’s mind, or to writing about how one has changed one’s mind, but rather to writing about it in a certain scummy, sniveling, skulking, yet sanctimonious way. In other words, I read Helen’s post as making a partially aesthetic claim rather than a purely positive one, with the positive subclaim restricted in scope. Then again the two are frequently combined in Helen’s writing, so who knows?
In any case, I think Conor is being rather unfair in broadening what was a narrowly-argued point, but my undying loyalty to Helen may be clouding my judgment.
P.S. Previous installments in this saga may be found here , here , here , and finally here .
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Ethics of Rhetoric in Times of War
What we say matters. And the way we say it matters. This is especially true in times…
How the State Failed Noelia Castillo
On March 26, Noelia Castillo, a twenty-five-year-old Spanish woman, was killed by her doctors at her own…
The Mind’s Profane and Sacred Loves
The teachers you have make all the difference in your life. That they happened to come into…
