This whole debate reminded me of what @SethDillon said a while ago on The @JeremyDBoreing Show. He laid out perfectly what I think should be at the center of this: 1. Everyone has the right to speak out about what they think, regardless of whether it's about someone on the Left or the Right. 2. Speaking your mind and being critical of something does not make you a bully or a thug. 3. When statements are made publicly, they invite a public response. (There is a weird dynamic going on within media and politics on the Right where you're not allowed to publicly address something problematic someone has said publically because doing so is considered disloyal.) 4. It's not about making enemies but about saying what you believe and why you believe it, as a matter of principle. 5. When bad ideas are spreading and rotting the minds of people, especially young people, we have a moral duty to speak out against them. Truth and principle must come before personal loyalty, private relationships, career advancement, or political alliances. This is what I believe.

Joel, I disagree with this approach, both in principle and in practice. Especially in politics and media, where the exercise of power affects the lives of millions of people, we need to be ruthlessly honest, truthful, clear, direct, and willing to hold people accountable. The fundamental problem with your argument is this: Who gets to decide who the genuine bad guys are and who is merely misguided, naive, or caught up in the wrong crowd? By what standard, and based on whose judgment? To this day, there are people who still fail to recognize Fuentes, Tucker, and Candace for bad actors. Then there are people who recognize the problem but are astonished to see another layer of people defending, excusing, or running cover for them. And now you're effectively proposing a third layer of protection for that second layer, on the grounds that those people might be well-intentioned, naive, or simply loyal to the wrong friends. Where does it end? It's like peeling back the layers of an onion, only to discover an increasingly tangled network of personal loyalties, relationships, and mutual protection, where each layer shields the one beneath it from accountability. And that is precisely the problem. When someone says or does something harmful, dishonest, or morally wrong, they should be held accountable for it. That includes defending or legitimizing people who engage in such behavior. Having cultivated personal relationships, friendships, or political alliances should not grant anyone immunity from criticism. Being unable or unwilling to identify bad actors does not erase the consequences of bad judgment. And loyalty does not absolve anyone of responsibility for the people, ideas, or narratives they choose to defend. Your argument also assumes that we can reliably distinguish the genuinely malicious from the merely misguided before deciding whom we are allowed to criticize. But discernment is precisely what so many people lack. Some recognize dangerous patterns long before others do. Why should those who see them earlier be expected to remain silent until everyone else catches up? Why not let them speak so more people become aware? Not everyone is that brave, so why punish those who are brave enough to raise their voices first? Most people only dare to speak up once someone else has already done so. There is a difference between treating people with kindness and protecting them from the consequences of their own words and actions. You can extend grace to someone without excusing what they do. You can leave room for someone to change without demanding that others stop pointing out what is wrong. And finally, this requires humility in all directions: You are asking people to consider the possibility that someone they regard as a bad actor might actually be a decent person who has been misunderstood. Fair enough. But are you equally willing to consider the opposite? That you might be mistaken. That your personal relationships might be clouding your judgment. That someone you consider a genuinely good person might be a bad one. Accountability cannot depend on how many people like you, how many friends you have, or how valuable your relationships are to a political coalition. It has to depend on what you actually say, do, defend, and enable. This is the only principle that should count. Otherwise, we're not exercising discernment, and whoever is more popular or better at doing people favors is chronically allowed to get away with more wrongdoing than others.