|
|
|
|
|
|
by staticman2
954 days ago
|
|
|
That's an interesting take. An alternative take is he desperately sought to become a public intellectual for personal reasons- while simultaneously believing this would hurt his patients, and declared this the New York Times's problem. I thought he regularly preaches the presumption of good faith, even when discussing some of the most radical people in the world, interesting how that's not extended to the NY Times for the sin of... using a real name policy? |
|
|