Pamela Paul, known for her controversial and provocative columns in the New York Times' Opinion section, is leaving amid job cuts. Over a brief tenure marked by liberal contrarianism, she has argued that free speech faces assault while advocating against gender medicine as damaging to youth. Critics note the frivolity in her work, which often complains about younger generations and laments the loss of literary appreciation. Ultimately, Paul's approach suggests a belief that weaker opinions could improve societal discourse, highlighting her perception of modern discourse as fraught and challenging.
The controversial columnist is exiting the New York Times "Opinion" section this spring as part of a wave of job cuts.
Paul's work has provoked outrage for its claims about free speech being under assault and the alleged dangers of gender medicine.
Paul seems to have risen to the rank of professional opinion-haver by the sheer upthrust of discomfort, like an earthworm in the rain.
Her principal opinion is that everyone else's opinions should be as weakly held as her own - the idea being that if all our opinions were weaker, society as a whole might be stronger.
Collection
[
|
...
]