Re: Why Won't You Answer, Glenn V.?

On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 8:50:56 PM UTC-5, Glenn V. wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 12:11:23 AM UTC+1, BT George wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 1:16:06 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote: 
> > > On 12 Mar 2021 13:06:48 -0000, John McAdams 
> > > <[email protected]> wrote: 
> > > 
> > > >On 11 Mar 2021 04:15:51 -0000, "Glenn V." <[email protected]> wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > >>On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 2:48:31 AM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote: 
> > > >>> On 10 Mar 2021 22:21:40 -0000, "Glenn V." <[email protected]> wrote: 
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> > 
> > > >>> What Trump has done is make the GOP clearly the party that opposed 
> > > >>> arrogant elites. Like the tech giants that censor content they don't 
> > > >>> like. 
> > > >> 
> > > >>What an embarrassing statement, John. Read up on things before you utter 
> > > >>anything on this subject. Whether the elites are GOP or DNC I will leave 
> > > >>out, both probably. But as far as Trump, for heavens sake *do you not 
> > > >>understand* that the elites are his best friends? Those zero. point one 
> > > >>percent who gained 90 percent of his tax cuts? Trump doesn't give a s**t 
> > > >>about his "base. Right now his about to milk them of millions of dollars 
> > > >>to a new fund. He's a grifter, John. Nothing else. 
> > > >> 
> > > >>Read up, John, You are out of touch. 
> > > >> 
> > > >>My God. John. What you are defending is going to end up on the ash heap of 
> > > >>history. I would have never concluded this about you. This really isn't 
> > > >>about votes, is it? 
> > > >> 
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> I'm guessing you like Facebook and Twitter banning Trump. 
> > > >> 
> > > >>Here we go again with the ridiculous patronizing. Again, and again you do 
> > > >>this, John. That's the really sad part of this discussion. I would have 
> > > >>thought much better of you. The truth is that some of those you can't 
> > > >>speak to in the JFK assassination, I can - and I do, they've all rejected 
> > > >>you because of exactly what I've said here: learn, do not patronize people 
> > > >>left and right, like you do. 
> > > >> 
> > > > 
> > > >Answer the question! 
> > > > 
> > > >Do you approve of the Tech Giants banning Trump? 
> > > > 
> > > Simple question. 
> > > 
> > > Are you afraid to answer? 
> > > 
> > > .John 
> > > ------------------------------- 
> > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm 
> > Glenn, I would like to see a direct answer on this point. If you agree 
> > with it, just own it, and explain why you think political censorship isn't 
> > deadly dangerous to a liberal Democracy. If you don't agree with it, the 
> > simply repudiate it. I think in a *fair* contest of ideas, the right 
> > ideas will win in the end. And I would say that if the Left had a the 
> > equivalent of a Trump that was being banned. 
> > 
> > Brock
> Brock, what does this question have to do with this discussion? John 
> "assumed" opinions of mine, to later *demand* an answer those assumptions 
> of his. Why is this relevant to this discussion and why would we let John 
> divert the discussion this way? Is that about a fair contest of ideas? 
> What gives John the right to *demand* answers from anyone here? Free 
> speech? 
> 

Glenn I don't care what it has to do with the issue at hand.  Nor do I 
care if you answer John.  But since he asked, I was wanting to see you 
answer.  Why? Because I assume you would be for the censorship?  Hardly, 
but by the same token I think silence is allowing him and others room to 
invalidate legitimate things you have to say.

I regard you as one of my best friends in the "virtual" realm and truly 
enjoyed our time together in Dallas in 2016.  That won't ever change, 
because I am not a political ideologue.  But I *am* a person who values 
rock solid principles that underlie a healthy Democracy, and to me, it's 
just as legitimate a question if shutting down speech one doesn't agree 
with (as some Tech companies have Trump and other non Progressives) isn't 
just as dangerous to a Democracy as trying to make voting (unreasonably) 
tough.  Since I am *confident* you agree, I was actually trying to draw 
you out, because I do think some of the harsh tone directed your way is 
based on untenable *assumptions* about your motives in several areas.

You are a Left-thinker, but one of the most honest and principled I have 
ever had the pleasure of dialoging with.  Hence, I want you to be able to 
contribute here and not be seen as a mindless, biased, ideologue which 
some have seemed to improperly imply in this thread.

> If you, too, think that I in any way whatsoever would be afraid to answer 
> any question from John or anyone else here, you are wrong. I agree what 
> was said somewhere above, the Gish Galloping is rampant in this thread. 
> 
> Did you see any answers from John so far, about what is behind one of the 
> bills in Georgia that would make it illegal to feed people in line to 
> vote, for example? An answer to this would be very much in line with the 
> topic of my first posting, which is very different from John's question. 
> It goes both ways, Brock. 
> 

Glenn, I will go back and look.  But remember, my interest in this thread 
has never been narrowly focused on the Georgia issue, but on some of the 
larger issues involved.  As you know, I think some of the Democratic 
complaints about "suppression" range from the exaggerated to the downright 
false.  But I am certainly open to validity in some of their complaints.  
Because I don't want to shut down their speech, yours, or anyone else's 
even when it might be inconvenient to me.


> FYI, I have very clear opinions on the tech companies' actions.

See my earlier comments.  Your call of course whether to respond.