But, playing off the previous post, I want to focus on something Jeffrey S said:
However, when he [Williamson] dared to suggest in clear sentences that the best thing that folks faced with few opportunities in dying small towns (like Garbutt in upstate New York) could do was to move out and seek better opportunities elsewhere, his critics on the mostly traditional and paleo Right (at least these are the critics I’m interested in) were not happy with him.To provide some framing, let me quote from Williamson's article again:
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.The rest of the article isn't much better.
Again, notice how Jeffrey S frames all this: as Williamson daring to suggest, in clear sentences, that people in dying small towns should move out.
Sure. Also, Mapplethorpe was an artist who just chose to make Christ the centerpiece of his work (following in the footsteps of Michaelangelo), but in an admittedly unconventional way. Now, let's spend several paragraphs talking about his use of black and white photography and the broad, abstract merits of public funding of the arts, which has all the rubes worked up.
That's not to say I can cry foul when Williamson decides to get insulting, since I do that myself. But if you're going to defend the man's writings - and criticize the reaction to them - then you really should address what he actually said, and not just the heavily sterilized economic theory upon which he broadly positioned his comments. Otherwise you come across as either deceptive to the point of being dishonest, or at best amazingly ignorant about the very thing you're writing a defense of.