I think a case could be made that the firing reveals the org for what they are: more of a PR firm than a think tank.
I'd guess all their messaging on the guy's "separation" was around avoiding triggering an IRS audit more than anything else. Although losing Google's patronage might actually cost them more than losing tax exempt status, losing the status would likely mean Google would stop funding as they'd lose the tax write-off. So, losing tax exemption would basically be a death knell.
The government subsidy issue also implies a degree of actual 1st Amendment speech implications. The power to tax is the power to kill/silence/stifle/etc. I don't want to overstate that point, but this may be one of the rare instances where the "censorship" cry carries at least a little validity.
Please explain to me how the argument is made in bad faith. You're characterizing their comment in this way because you disagree with their statement, you even go so far as to speculate on a cynical internal thought stream regarding their motivations for posting. To me, it reads like they are making an earnest argument, even if the rhetoric is dismissive.
"Castigating someone else's opinions as the destruction of open discussion is the height of irony."
This is putting words into kobeya's comment, which was about discourse, not discussion.
> This is putting words into kobeya's comment, which was about discourse, not discussion
I will admit I misquoted, but the words "discourse" and "discussion" have a nearly identical meaning in this context unless there is a definition of discourse I am not aware of. Can you explain what you mean?
Sorry, but I think that sentiment sounds more hostile to the platform than the assertion that one should consider a different point of view on a subject. ballenf's comment was made succinctly and without any personal attacks; just because you disagree with it doesn't mean its noise. I think it's fair to criticize the comment as striking a dismissive tone, but at least it's addressing the substance of the OP's comment, you, on the other hand, categorically dismiss ballenf's comment as noise without taking the intellectual effort to address its substance. That seems a lot closer to noise than anything else up to that point.
All you're doing here is begging the question. What i'm telling you is that the comment does not meet the definition of "off-topic" and I've explained my reasoning for that, all you've done is repeat the same sentiment that "off-topic comments are noise" which is a completely non-controversial statement that nobody is arguing against. Absent of any further reasoning I am left to assume that you simply do not like the comment.
For someone with such a self-righteous attitude regarding the tenants of appropriate discourse, you're sure lacking in respect for fellow commenters by your refusal to provide any justification for flippantly dismissing others comments as "off-topic noise". Normally I expect others to provide reasoning for blanket dismissals, but I suppose you must be the definitive authority on what is and isn't off topic, so everyone who disagrees will just take your word for it and move on.
> You want to debate something else (like you're doing now!), go do it in a different thread.
Haha, this entire subthread is a direct branch off of your explicitly off-topic comment, yet you're suggesting that I go away because I had the audacity to push back on your blanket dismissal... yet somehow I suspect you don't consider your own replies in this thread to be off-topic noise. I have to respectfully conclude that you're at least twice as disingenuous as a person who will gladly expound on the reasoning behind their arguments.
It's like someone saying "the senate always votes to raise its own pay whenever republicans are in power!" and someone else replying "they only raised it to match inflation, the real problem is that senators are charged with determining their own salary", then, someone responds with "stop changing the subject". If anyone is "changing the subject" it's the person that instigated a contentious meta-discussion about what is and what's not on topic.