“you co-mingle proven facts with opinions in your examples as a way to tear down your opposition’s high ground rather than elevate your own.”
What I provided were objectively true responses on the part of many prominent, outspoken liberals to matters of opinion. Bill Cosby has not been found guilty of a crime, yet one would be dishonest to say that he has not already been declared guilty in the court of public opinion. Should a trial result in him being found “not guilty,” in the minds of a great number of liberals, he is unquestionably a rapist. The same standards are not applied by the very same people to Bill Clinton, who has almost four decades of rape accusations trailing him, or to Hillary who says that we should believe those who claim they have been raped (except for the alleged victims of her husband) Why do you suppose that is?
I will put my cards out on the table and self-identify as a libertarian. I am no fan of either of the major American parties. My response was not to the article itself, but to the commenter who implied that those on the opposing team have some sort of monopoly on denying the evidence (not “facts”) when it doesn’t fit their narrative. Jessica Valenti and her compatriots will stand with a false rape accuser even after she has been clearly shown to be a liar — because the alleged perpetrators were white UVA fraternity members — but they don’t even utter a single tweet about organized rape gangs when it lends credence to the position that unbridled open borders for alleged refugees may not be the best idea after all.
Of course, all “conservatives” and “progressives” are not uniform in their respective beliefs. That wasn’t what I suggested at all. The prevailing, most articulated positions of both sides reveal a willingness to ignore any evidence that call those views into question.