Fair criticism. I've spoken with Auron on another occasion, as part of my book tour, and he was also spirited in his criticisms. Even where we disagreed, he supported his arguments clearly. I'm ultimately of the mind that we need limits—a policy of "no enemies to the right" without qualifications is not persuasive, either morally or politically.
Fair criticism. I've spoken with Auron on another occasion, as part of my book tour, and he was also spirited in his criticisms. Even where we disagreed, he supported his arguments clearly. I'm ultimately of the mind that we need limits—a policy of "no enemies to the right" without qualifications is not persuasive, either morally or politically.
I'm not a NETTR person. But I do want negotiations and diplomacy, transparently so, on the boundaries, as I would not trust Wokal or James Lindsay with drawing any lines that threaten to limit my freedom of expression. I also want a broad coalition that has democratic power and ability to win, I believe in representative (illiberal, Hungary as example) democracy, not monarchy or some other autocratic system like the NRx types I mentioned.
Limits needed, but transparent debate on where to draw limits also needed.
I am not convinced either of the 4 panelists would be good at drawing them to be honest. Wokal seems driven by fear, which is not a surprise, and he makes these ambiguous cases about evil and abhorrent views. Name them all and let's discuss each specifically. His partner was driven by Christian empathy and compassion. Not really conducive to social norms and boundaries. Haywood was largely disingenuous IMO and also ambiguous. He's a multi-millionaire. He cannot be cancelled. Just spell what you want out Mr. Haywood.
Fair criticism. I've spoken with Auron on another occasion, as part of my book tour, and he was also spirited in his criticisms. Even where we disagreed, he supported his arguments clearly. I'm ultimately of the mind that we need limits—a policy of "no enemies to the right" without qualifications is not persuasive, either morally or politically.
Not criticism, just observation.
I'm not a NETTR person. But I do want negotiations and diplomacy, transparently so, on the boundaries, as I would not trust Wokal or James Lindsay with drawing any lines that threaten to limit my freedom of expression. I also want a broad coalition that has democratic power and ability to win, I believe in representative (illiberal, Hungary as example) democracy, not monarchy or some other autocratic system like the NRx types I mentioned.
Limits needed, but transparent debate on where to draw limits also needed.
I am not convinced either of the 4 panelists would be good at drawing them to be honest. Wokal seems driven by fear, which is not a surprise, and he makes these ambiguous cases about evil and abhorrent views. Name them all and let's discuss each specifically. His partner was driven by Christian empathy and compassion. Not really conducive to social norms and boundaries. Haywood was largely disingenuous IMO and also ambiguous. He's a multi-millionaire. He cannot be cancelled. Just spell what you want out Mr. Haywood.
Ah, I have spelled out what I want!
https://theworthyhouse.com/2021/06/17/the-foundationalist-manifesto-the-politics-of-future-past/