This article is bullshit, full of ridiculous dichotomies that make no goddam sense. I did not waste my time reading it all, so I’ll just quote a couple of the moronic (not to say disingenuous, because I would not want to questions Mr. Armstrong’s good faith) arguments.

The current debate about free speech doesn’t pit a creeping totalitarianism against a liberal order on the brink of collapse. Instead it calls for a messy compromise.

The debate is between a creeping totalitarianism and those who know creeping totalitarianism when they see it. Changing the subject won’t change the reality.

For the authors in question this statement was rendered absurd as soon as the thought was articulated.

So, John commits some “microagrression” and the totalitarian twitter mob says “cancel.” Then Noam or Bari says “ the mob is suppressing speech,” and Mr. Armstrong replies that the mob’s failure also to cancel Noam (the Jury’s still out on Bari) is proof that it is not suppressing free speech? Is he really that stupid? Is anyone?