Jon Pretty

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.

I don't have evidence that you've called John a Nazi, and I could have been more precise with my language, especially the final tweet. But as you could probably tell, I felt antagonized.

Thanks for acknowledging that here, but the decent thing to do would be to add a correction that your followers who saw the accusation will also see, or at least to delete that tweet.

Yes, I was going to offer you a choice. Would you rather I delete the thread (which could be seen as deleting evidence) or offer a clarification, given that I still reject the insinuation in your bio? If we can both start deescalating here, it would be a positive step.