Thomas Woods makes a point that I agree with entirely:
Racial insensitivity is not as bad as mass murder. I guess that’s what I’m saying. Yet the latter is considered a “point of view,” and the former is unforgivable and grounds for character assassination and smears. The moral universe I inhabit ranks these offenses differently.
Last month, I said something quite similar:
Such is the strange nature of what counts as “controversial” in our discourse: advocating aggressive war, the bombing of civilians, torture and the possible first-strike use of tactical nukes are all considered debatable positions on policy and have all been offered by major candidates for the Presidency either during the campaign or in their previous work, but to engage in intemperate and indeed appalling rhetoric that will actually harm and maim no one is evidence of the need for exclusion from respectable society. There is something deeply wrong about those priorities that seek to police thought, but which do little or nothing to challenge advocacy for deeply immoral actions. If the one merits being driven out of the debate, how much more should the other merit even more severe consequences?