My take on today's Wapo oped, which takes diverse free speech advocates like , , , , and others, labels them conservative, then compares them to proslavery propagandists. All in a day's work, I reckon.
But a major risk of guilt by association arguments is that they can be turned back on their makers, as does here, noting that those same very bad people sided with Fairbanks on some points, while some very good people did not:
"Once you adopt, in the hope of suppressing speech you consider unjust, the argument that emotional hurt can be grounds for suppressing speech, you’ve got nothing to say when the same argument is made to suppress speech you consider just."
An unsparing response to the op-ed comparing those who defend free speech and thought to slaveholders by .
"In an August 29 Washington Post op-ed, the journalist Eve Fairbanks goes after the arguments of a group she calls “reasonable right.” By reasonable, she means unreasonable. And by right, she means closet racists."