I can't help but notice that nearly all of the comments address the substance of Glenn's opinions on the Gaza War, some offering insightful counterarguments and others descending into ad-hominem sucker punches. Many commenters seem to have missed Glenn's point.
The article is a meta-reflection (Glenn seems to like doing this—have you heard of a book called Late Admissions?) on the nature of being a public intellectual amidst increasingly polarizing times. A tension arises between the desire to unflinchingly speak one's mind, and the social ramifications it engenders—in this case, being labeled anti-Semitic. The balance is a difficult one, and I would urge commenters to actually try speaking publicly on such matters. It's much more difficult than you might think to formulate a clear, concise, view on any given matter, and to continually do so over a long period. I'm an undergraduate at UCLA, and during the height of the encampment mayhem, I made a long social media post calling for it to end. The encampment brought anarchy and would only further degrade the quality of discourse without actually helping any of those suffering, went my opinion. This may or may not have been correct, but I knew for certain that such matters direly needed to be debated openly.
Many have offered counterarguments in the spirit of open discourse, but unfortunately some have decided to chastise Glenn for his views on the matter. If you had a knee-jerk reaction to think "I can't believe Glenn said this or that", and took the time to comment as such, then consider that you may be part of the reason why Glenn harbors such fears about open expression. Those of us in Glenn's community should understand the danger of cancel culture, and each of us should consider it a responsibility to presume good faith in dialogue and allow for people to be large, and contain multitudes. Only by ditching the my-side-your-side mentality can we lower the suffocating veil of censorship, and achieve a real degree of discourse.
Critique of Glenn has nothing to do with cancel culture or censorship, it's, obviously, just a passionate disagreement with his views on this topic. Sorry if you can't see this.
I actually do see this. I drew a distinction between those who passionately disagree and those who morally condemn Glenn. Even if it’s not a manner of literal censorship, the latter creates a stifling aura which discourages the healthy form of discourse needed on these types of subjects. Maybe I’ve misjudged the comment section here, but it seemed like there are a number of people saying things like “I can’t believe Glenn would say such a thing” instead of straightforwardly offering their different viewpoints. We can disagree robustly without moral condemnation, and our discourse would be better without it in the majority of cases.
I can't help but notice that nearly all of the comments address the substance of Glenn's opinions on the Gaza War, some offering insightful counterarguments and others descending into ad-hominem sucker punches. Many commenters seem to have missed Glenn's point.
The article is a meta-reflection (Glenn seems to like doing this—have you heard of a book called Late Admissions?) on the nature of being a public intellectual amidst increasingly polarizing times. A tension arises between the desire to unflinchingly speak one's mind, and the social ramifications it engenders—in this case, being labeled anti-Semitic. The balance is a difficult one, and I would urge commenters to actually try speaking publicly on such matters. It's much more difficult than you might think to formulate a clear, concise, view on any given matter, and to continually do so over a long period. I'm an undergraduate at UCLA, and during the height of the encampment mayhem, I made a long social media post calling for it to end. The encampment brought anarchy and would only further degrade the quality of discourse without actually helping any of those suffering, went my opinion. This may or may not have been correct, but I knew for certain that such matters direly needed to be debated openly.
Many have offered counterarguments in the spirit of open discourse, but unfortunately some have decided to chastise Glenn for his views on the matter. If you had a knee-jerk reaction to think "I can't believe Glenn said this or that", and took the time to comment as such, then consider that you may be part of the reason why Glenn harbors such fears about open expression. Those of us in Glenn's community should understand the danger of cancel culture, and each of us should consider it a responsibility to presume good faith in dialogue and allow for people to be large, and contain multitudes. Only by ditching the my-side-your-side mentality can we lower the suffocating veil of censorship, and achieve a real degree of discourse.
Critique of Glenn has nothing to do with cancel culture or censorship, it's, obviously, just a passionate disagreement with his views on this topic. Sorry if you can't see this.
I actually do see this. I drew a distinction between those who passionately disagree and those who morally condemn Glenn. Even if it’s not a manner of literal censorship, the latter creates a stifling aura which discourages the healthy form of discourse needed on these types of subjects. Maybe I’ve misjudged the comment section here, but it seemed like there are a number of people saying things like “I can’t believe Glenn would say such a thing” instead of straightforwardly offering their different viewpoints. We can disagree robustly without moral condemnation, and our discourse would be better without it in the majority of cases.