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.
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.