> and he is willing to be in a foxhole with someone like John I resent this attitude, which has become too popular these days. I can defend someone without "be

> and he is willing to be in a foxhole with someone like John I resent this attitude, which has become too popular these days. I can defend someone without "being in a foxhole with them", if I think they're being treated too harshly, being misunderstood, ect (and it's not necessarily the "hill I want to die on either"). I might not even like the person, or agree with them. In fairness to you, in this case he does seem to be going out of his way to ally with him. I find myself skeptical of everyone in cases like these. The linked article has some serious issues in my opinion. Cher makes some good points, but is clearly very biased. That's understandable, however, some of the language she uses is warped to the point of being deceptive. I still feel like I'm not getting the full story here, and getting the full story requires wading through hours of social media drama. I certainly don't trust Lunduke either as there's also issues with his narrative. I still haven't seen anything that should be a violation of policy worthy of being disinvited. It still seems very much like politically motivated punishment and optics. Inviting someone to engage in a "civil conversation" as Wood did is pretty weasly, but I don't see any harrasment or abuse here.