Well, I guess my personal opinion is that, even in shitposts, we should hold ourselves to *higher* standards than whatever the fuck it is the Atlantic does actually. You clearly know that if you were being published in the Atlantic you could say whatever you want as long as it’s vaguely on brand.

And speaking of bad writing: I should not have written “she clearly thinks” the family should have the choice. Only that she clearly states that they were denied it.

I’m familiar with “to be sure” lines, and definitely see them everywhere already. I don’t necessarily agree that’s what this is. But as I’ve said in other replies, I think it’s fair to doubt her sincerity when she says it. I basically think it’s a bad piece, *and* I think it’s being misrepresented.

I think it’s completely reasonable to doubt her sincerity. But I think it’s important to criticize the piece she actually wrote and not a caricature of the piece that was reconstructed by extrapolating from its most offensive few sentences. Which is what I see happening.

Yeah, I just disagree about that last part. I think if you’re interested in discrediting Liz Bruenig, then assuming the worst and denouncing her for what you assume her position to be is counterproductive. It will be a satisfying sermon for the choir, but discredit you in the eyes of the unconverted

To clarify: I don’t share your opinion as to the absolute degree of ghoulishness, but it was certainly phrased callously and I do think it’s entirely fair to question the sincerity of the family consent piece given her overall bad track record on the issue.

I think that’s reasonable. I also think, having looked at a lot of the other replies and quote tweets, that the selective cropping has led a lot of people down a path of boxing with a straw-man version of the article. Which then makes the criticism seem hollow to people who read the whole thing. IMO

Powerful counterpoint, thanks for your input.

FWIW, I think it’s a badly written article that doesn’t do a very good making the points it seems to be trying to make. I also think Bruenig is completely and utterly wrong about abortion. But OP’s screenshot misrepresents her position. I think that’s bad and makes the criticism look disingenuous.

I mean, my assumption going in was that would be the ground on which Bruenig would like to fight. And OP’s screenshot reinforces the idea. But if that were the case, why would she follow up by saying the family was denied a choice *and* that they are in the best position to speak on Smith’s behalf?

Yeah, it’s not a very well written article. Still, I think it’s bad to misrepresent people’s positions and lie about what they believe even if they’re people we disagree with. (As I do with Bruenig: she is completely and utterly wrong about abortion.)

Yes, I agree. And based on the rest of the paragraph, which was cropped out, so does Bruenig…

Sure, but I also think Valenti’s cropping choice gives a pretty warped view of what Bruenig was actually saying. Based on the rest of the paragraph, she clearly thinks Smith’s family should have been given the opportunity to choose. In the absence of an advance directive, that seems correct, no?