Sulyvahn prepared me for this fight

writing mentality right now

or argue anything or make any point without invoking its specter.

He is a hack and a colossal embarrassment. How anyone takes him seriously is beyond me.

regressive Middle Eastern countries are despite the fact the NYT ran some inane podcast episode that initially had the title "Did Women Ruin the Workplace?"

But back to Stephens, there is no denying that antisemitism is a problem. But because he is intellectually bereft, he cannot frame

intellectual honesty. But it's worse with Stephens because he pretends he has it, and the NYT plugs his articles hard for whatever reason. Douthat is a naked ideologue whose sympathies lie closer with 1963's George Wallace than anyone since. Douthat would whine about Sharia law and how

David French's views suck, but he's not so much of a hack that he can't criticize the right without going "but it's the woke left's fault," something Bret shares with the moldy beetle the NYT employs who everyone has decided to call Ross Douthat. Douthat and Stephens are completely devoid of any

centuries. His worldview is not internally consistent because he does not even know how to articulate his thoughts without revealing that there is no base logic underlying all of it, it's pure emotion based on inherited ideals of conservatism.

This is in line with conservative foreign policy for the last 30 years, but I don't think Bret even understands why he thinks this way. He pretends it's about antisemitism but he only cares about "the left's" antisemitism "problem," when it has been a much worse problem on his side of the aisle for

So why is he pretending?
Because he wants to complain about something he doesn't like and he doesn't know how to word it in such a way that shows the actual view undergirding his columns, which is that anyone from the Middle East is dirty and gross, and that Islam must be exterminated.

Is there any doubt that there is no person less qualified to say "what's best for Palestinians" and "how to improve conditions on the ground" on the editorial board than Bret? If I told him I imported my dog from Palestine he would strangle it. He does not view Palestinians as people.

...article failing to say why it's a bad thing that Palestinian statehood is recognized and how it's not the best way to help Palestinians. The problem is his entire column history for the past two years argues that if any Palestinian is left alive it's antisemitic

The only way it makes sense is if you, like Bret, think any whiff of criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic. But Bret Stephens can't argue that because it would reveal that he is a diversity hire for the NYT and doesn't actually have salient points to make. So he spends the rest of the...

When he wrote about countries recognizing Palestinian statehood he said "Will this improve conditions on the ground? Not likely. But it will definitely increase antisemitism in Western countries."

The thing about this argument is that it isn't an argument. It doesn't make any sense.

this is the most wholesome image I've ever seen

she's from an anime, Eureka Seven LMAO