The problem is that it frequently detours from interesting discussions points to do things like dump on Greenpeace. Not interesting. Being elsewhere on the political spectrum doesn’t discount the interesting points, it just injects too many wacky ideas to make it possible to engage with. Ratio of density between interesting points and fever swamp ranting too low. Trash rag.

On the flip side, it publishes and prominently features people like Chris Rufo [1], who openly acknowledges propagandizing and intentionally muddying the waters around topics like CRT [2]. Obviously you can still have a conversation or discuss the points made, but at a certain point it just becomes a waste of time to use people who revel in acting in bad faith as a starting point for a dialogue.

Especially when they are far from the only ones discussing the issue: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal...

[1] https://www.city-journal.org/christopher-rufo-on-woke-educat...

[2] https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1371540368714428416

>Americans shouldn't be so fast to discount the idea of each other just because they are from the other end of their political spectrum. US politics would improve if both sides avoided that.

Nah, it just devolves into bad faith ad hominem towards the end. This is no National Review.

It's not much more than a rant really.