There’s an old Yiddish expression that translates roughly:
“Never argue with a fool. People might not be able to tell the difference.”
That’s good advice, and the fact that I ignore it too often is, I confess, an error and a fault.
But there’s also an old English expression of equal authority:
“In for a penny, in for a pound.”
So having foolishly engaged via Twitter with Prof. Ann Althouse of the University of Wisconsin Law School, and having attracted counter-fire not only from the good Professor herself but from her even less adept colleague Prof. Glenn ReynoldsÂ of the University of Tennessee Law School, it seems wise, just this once, to respond at some length. Don’t read on unless you have a prurient interest in folly, or in trolling, the bastard child of folly born of its occasional dalliance with intellectual dishonesty.
Continue reading “On arguing with fools, and Prof. Ann Althouse in particular”
There’s always something to be learned from watching seemingly intelligent people defending the indefensible.
Ann Althouse teaches law at the University of Wisconsin, which implies that her IQ must be above room temperature. (Her moral standing, given her at-best-ambivalence about tortureÂ (oh, I’m sorry, that’s merely “harsh interrogation techniques”) Â is another matter.) Â But her hatred of liberals and liberalism is so vehement that she supports Gov. Scott Walker, despite (because of?) his attacks on the University where she teaches. Still, you’d think that Donald Trump would be a bridge too far for anyone not actually a mouth-breather.
But pundits gotta pund, and apparently Althouse regards the common-sense approach adopted by many others on the Right – denouncing Trump as No True Conservative – too obvious, or insufficiently likely to raise the blood pressure of the people she despises.Â Continue reading “Defending the indefensible: Althouse on Trump’s blood libel”