Doesn't that observation presume that Breitbart was acting in good faith?
Seems to me that an equally plausible, if not more plausible, explanation is that he was acting with excellent critical thinking skills, believing correctly that he could bully a spineless administration and dupe a moronic media.
Ken, your explanation violates TL's doctrine of the back-handedly charitable presumption: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
Thoughtful, insightful, or informative comments are always welcome. Advertising will be deleted permanently. TL reserves the right to delete comments in his sole discretion (but rarely does so other than for advertising).
Doesn't that observation presume that Breitbart was acting in good faith?
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that an equally plausible, if not more plausible, explanation is that he was acting with excellent critical thinking skills, believing correctly that he could bully a spineless administration and dupe a moronic media.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteKen, your explanation violates TL's doctrine of the back-handedly charitable presumption: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
ReplyDelete