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 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.