Andrew Endymion
Jul 10, 2017 · 2 min read

Let’s review.

I wrote that Caitlin, whose writing I generally enjoy and whose main argument in this piece I agree with, went too far in certain places with venom b/c many people aren’t acquainted with all of the facts. Not b/c they are horrible people, but b/c many people have to spend every waking hour working to make ends meet and honoring obligations more immediately pressing than sifting through partisan offal to suss out the truth. You call this being “willfully ignorant” and dismiss those obligations as “petty in comparison,” which is a strange position to take when we’re talking about millions of total strangers and an ironic one from someone who later says it’s not OK to “…be a vocal critic when you don’t have a clue what you’re writing about.”

If they’re popping chocolates and playing video games, then sure, petty in comparison and they belong in the Maddow-Clinton/Obama partisans bucket of people who have earned such scorn. If they’re trying to pay and care for their children or sick family members, then no, not petty in comparison, which was my point about empathy that you ignored.

You also replied:

“So you think people should not be held responsible because they’re busy and their leaders mislead them.”

Nowhere in my original post did I say people weren’t responsible for their ignorance. You mischaracterized my response and, in so doing, implied that the later-quoted language from Caitlin’s article was somehow appropriate in order to hold them accountable. The only way it is appropriate is if it’s necessary. Otherwise, there is no reason to use such heavy-handed rhetoric when critiquing a group as diverse as the one that takes issue with Donald Trump’s approach in this case. A group that includes the Maddows, Podestas, Fallons, Mooks and Tandens i.e. people who follow these subjects for a living yet still push this partisan garbage for personal gain (which is how they entered the conversation, as a juxtaposition), but also includes the aforementioned everyday people who are trying to stay informed while trying to stay afloat.

As for this:

“Andrew, if you’re going to reply to my comment, please don’t quote from someone else’s post and make it look like I wrote it and act like it’s ‘my position.’”

Give me a break.

Nobody is going to attribute those words to you unless they’re coming to the comment thread independently of the article on which we’re commenting. And even then, they’d have to pick up the exchange in mid-thread. And even then, it should be clear I wasn’t making them look like yours or acting like its your position.

Notice the question mark at the end of the sentence. As in, I’m asking you if you agree with the mentality. Why would I be asking you if you agree with the mentality if you were the one espousing it?

You seem to be looking for reasons to butt heads and, FWIW, avoiding the substance of what I’m saying. That’s your call, but I find that sort of thing tiresome.

Cheers.

    Andrew Endymion

    Written by

    Leans to the left, but sees reason on both sides if you get beyond the leadership. Hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty are my pet peeves.