Leon Louw wastes the valuable space of an entire column to rage about one letter to the editor (Why intellectuals fall for extreme estimate of global inequality, May 10).
In his diatribe he states that if all you know of someone is that "they believe extreme estimates of global inequality then you know a great deal about their probable position on many seemingly unrelated issues: gun control, gay rights, welfare regulation, nuclear, global warming, abortion, racism, sexism, hate speech, property rights, smoking and much more".
A splendid parade of stereotypes!
He devotes the rest of his column to sneering at such deluded folk. But it’s a long time since I heard a dislike of "racism" or "sexism" deployed as an insult to ridicule anyone — let alone to be offered as supposed evidence of their dishonesty on an entirely unrelated topic.
Once again, one has to wonder if Louw actually reads what he writes. Later, in another sweeping judgment, he claims that what separates the above-mentioned "slate" of delinquents from upstanding, honest people like himself is "loving or loathing liberty". Oh, please.
An old and useful rule of journalism used to be: reply to a reader’s letter with a letter and keep your valuable bylined column for presenting a coherent argument.
Bryan RostronCape Town