Jon Pretty

And that is the real danger to societies right now, and all the attention on Yarvin or John de Goes takes attention away from the slow but steady, incremental normalization of unpleasant ideas promoted by political parties in almost every developed country right now.

Firstly, thanks (seriously) for engaging with me in good faith on this. I'm aware of the link, and Yarvin may indirectly feed the ideas of the Trump administration. But I think it's harder to argue that the public should not have visibility of what crap Steve Bannon is being fed.

Here's what Amar Shah wrote about De Goes's attitude with respect to Yarvin: "What I found unsettling was how generous this appraisal felt – as if to convince us that Yarvin isn't a bad guy, just somehow misunderstood. The entire letter reads this way."

This isn't about "visibility". De Goes went out of his way to provide cover for Yarvin, after claiming to have "reviewed nearly all of his writings and videos".

From what I know, John's absolutism on freedom of speech at the time trumped his judgement of what is acceptable speech. I think his "mistakes were made" point, coupled with private conversations we've had, acknowledges this, albeit in a way that's unsatisfactory to most people.

The question that started this conversation isn't "did he apologize?", though—it was "is he justified in making legal threats?" You said that he is, and you publicly accused me of something I honestly don't think I've ever done, without evidence.

I also appreciate that you're engaging in this conversation in good faith now, but I wish you would correct or delete the tweets where directly you accuse me of things you don't have evidence for. I would do the same for you or De Goes.