human
I'm sorry, but this editorial is very bizarre.  Is it satire?  Self-parody?
Just this afternoon, I was thinking:  what if NCR types, instead of hysterically condemning people with different views, tried to understand them?  What if the NCR published a piece that, instead of reflexively denouncing people with other views, published a thoughtful piece that made an honest attempt to understand other perspectives? 

Inded, when I saw the title of this piece, which included the phrase 'have a civil discussion', I thought –finally, the NCR is waking up.  But the body of the article belittles anyone who disagrees with their party line.  If someone dares challenge either heterodoxy or immorality, it's 'hateful vitriol' and 'ad hominem attacks'.  And of course there's the 'rigid legalism of the John Paul II and Benedict eras'.  Anyone who dare publish their thoughts is a 'cyber militia'.  Does NCR really not see the pathetic irony here?
gpt
{"moderation": ["safe"]}