NPR did a service by publishing the interview on 'In Defense of Looting.' I don't mean that in a snarky way. Bad ideas should get a platform, especially when they represent a significant segment of public or elite opinion

Of course, actual defenders of looting are a numerical fringe. But sympathy for looting and rioting is is more common among privileged elites. Mainstream journalists, including at places like @nytimes, have been coyly legitimizing certain kinds of violence as not actually violent

So let's not dance around these issues, considering how important they are. If you think widespread property damage and destruction of communities can be justified in the name of "justice," then come out with the full argument, and let's judge it on the merits

Some ideas, of course, are beyond the pale. NPR shouldn't be publishing anything legitimizing slavery, for example. But defenses of rioting are *not* beyond the pale. Perhaps they should be, but they aren't. If they were settled, we wouldn't be debating them

I'm generally uncomfortable with news outlets deciding which debates are "unsettled" vs. "settled." That's not their job. All unsettled views should get a hearing, even ones that seem odious to us (and what will seem odious to one reader could very well seem just to another)

We *postpone* final judgement on unsettled issues to the extent possible. I think looting and property damage are very bad. But because of the "unsettled" nature of the debate, I shouldn't want anyone who defends or justifies looting to be canceled or otherwise censured

*Postponing judgment* is fundamental to what I call "hating each other peacefully," which is difficult to do well, but in my view is absolutely what we need today. I discuss some of these principles in this @TheAtlantic essay: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/democracy-islamic-exceptionalism/529899/

If a significant slice of the population objects to the notion that something is settled, then it *isn't* settled yet, and it's up to citizens to convince more of their countrymen of their position. This isn't published yet, but it goes into some more detail on how this works:

Some might argue that this way of looking at *unsettled* vs. *settled* issues is a recipe for societal breakdown. There is a risk of that. But what I'm arguing for, in theory, can lead to a different outcome: the "decriminalization" of most political disagreement

What would this approach mean in practice? It means, in effect, that there are no "good" or "bad" Americans, excepting the 2 or 3% that are avowed racists or white supremacists. Very few Americans are irredeemable. There is the sinner and the sin—and they should be distinguished