If one were to remove the ad-hominem, red herring and strawman fallacies from this article there might not be "a single thought worthy of an intellectual audience" left to read.
Here's one particularly impressive example from the article that includes two ad-hominem attacks, two red herring fallacies, and Godwin's Law in one sentence:
"[Academic freedom] was most definitely not meant to ensure that smarmy campus conservatives can invite coked-up Nazis to tell us that trans folks are mentally ill or that it was A-OK for FDR to round up innocent Japanese-Americans and imprison them for four years."
The author should learn to make a succinct argument using sound logic rather than this appeal to emotion.
It is difficult to understand the author's thesis. Perhaps it is that: "That standard [of disourse] is not 'anything goes' and the sooner the broader public realizes that, the sooner we can lower the temperature on these kinds of controversies."
This is a strawman fallacy. Most conservatives aren't arguing that "anything goes". They're arguing that conservative students should be able to bring conservative speakers to campus to discuss ideas without the fear of violence.
If the author has proposed a sound refutation to that argument it isn't apparent to this reader.
If one were to remove the ad-hominem, red herring and strawman fallacies from this article there might not be "a single thought worthy of an intellectual audience" left to read.
Here's one particularly impressive example from the article that includes two ad-hominem attacks, two red herring fallacies, and Godwin's Law in one sentence:
"[Academic freedom] was most definitely not meant to ensure that smarmy campus conservatives can invite coked-up Nazis to tell us that trans folks are mentally ill or that it was A-OK for FDR to round up innocent Japanese-Americans and imprison them for four years."
The author should learn to make a succinct argument using sound logic rather than this appeal to emotion.
It is difficult to understand the author's thesis. Perhaps it is that: "That standard [of disourse] is not 'anything goes' and the sooner the broader public realizes that, the sooner we can lower the temperature on these kinds of controversies."
This is a strawman fallacy. Most conservatives aren't arguing that "anything goes". They're arguing that conservative students should be able to bring conservative speakers to campus to discuss ideas without the fear of violence.
If the author has proposed a sound refutation to that argument it isn't apparent to this reader.