I don’t mean to be pedantic or argumentative here, I just really don’t want to misunderstand you and I do what to understand what you think here.

Do you disagree with that claim? Or, if you’re saying it cuts against something, then what—and are you agreeing with the claim?

My only point was that, if you say those things about conservatives/Republicans/pro-lifers/originalists, some people will interpret that as including your colleagues and students who are those things. I’m not drawing any further implication from that.

If principled pro-democracy conservatives/Republicans/pro-lifers/originalists do not speak out against the unprecedented lawless authoritarianism that's happening on a daily basis now, then what?

Perhaps a social media issue or perhaps my being dumb, but I don’t understand what you’re saying. What cuts the other way?

But not everybody shares those opinions with me, and that’s fine, too.

If you ever want to engage on politics itself, I’m always happy to chat off-line. I think conversations like that, especially with differing perspectives, can be valuable as well as enjoyable. I also think social media is a terrible place to do it—nuance is important and entirely lost here.

I don’t speak for Susannah, but I thought that was clearly what she was saying. None of that is to say that you shouldn’t be able to express those opinions (or Susannah to criticize them).

Respectfully, if you are going to frequently say that you hold Republicans, pro-lifers, conservatives, originalists, etc. in low regard—not just specific individuals who are one of those—some people are going to think that you are including colleagues and students who fall into those groups.

More importantly, the discussion is more insightful and impactful if it includes more people, especially with different views. If we agree the questions and topics are important, help me make it as good of a dialogue on those as possible.

On a more positive note, I’m glad we agree on the questions and topics are important. I genuinely hope you’ll come to the event, whatever you think of the speaker. Maybe at least two of the four speakers are people you’re more sympathetic to!

I guess it depends a bit on whether we’re talking about the sort of academic definition of authoritarianism, such as Cas Mudde’s, under which conservatism & Catholicism are both authoritarian belief systems—if so, Douthat obviously qualifies but I don’t believe it’s immoral to promote those beliefs.

I don’t surely know that. At least from what I know of what they’ve said, I disagree. And we can disagree on that, too.

If one believes that, I don’t think it’s immoral to say that even if one is wrong about it, although there might be immoral to express it in certain ways (e.g., intentionally and unnecessarily insulting ones). We can disagree about that, but that was the point I was making.

In my opinion, whether is immoral to tell people they’re hysterical for being concerned about threats to democracy depends on whether they, in fact, believe that.

I think it's worth adding that the speakers may or may not be wrong, but being wrong is different from being immoral. It is not inherently immoral to be wrong.

I think these speakers—who are hardly all coming from the same perspective—will have interesting and insightful things to say about it, especially in conversation with each other and everyone else. Even if we got off on the wrong foot here, I genuinely hope you’ll consider attending.

Of course, I don’t agree with your opinion here. I think this will be a great event with a great set of speakers. I think the relationship between our religious faith and political values is something we could use more of a dialogue about, especially on campus.

Saying an event invites unserious people who have normalized and enabled authoritarianism is something I would usually label as a criticism of it. But that also has no bearing, in my opinion, on whether you should be able to express that opinion, criticism or not.

If a colleague posts about my event but I’m not sure what they meant or what they think of the event (whether or not, as in this case, it seemed likely critical), I typically want to know what they meant and asking seems like a reasonable way to find out.

I do, in fact, believe in your rights to do that. Does my asking what you were saying make you question that? Or did I do or say something else to do so?

Thank you for providing some insight on what you meant. I don’t think I said anything about whether I could invite the speakers or you could express a view on them. You are, of course, perfectly free to say whatever you like about the speakers. You are also perfectly free to criticize the event.

Hi Mark, can you explain what you're trying to say here? Do you have a criticism of the event?