re: #497 Jimmah

The thing I don’t understand is that normal debate is discouraged. It’s seen as an attack on the institution of sorts. There’s no room for growth if there is no debate.

Do we take the criticism of Dr. Holdren at face value ot do we analyze, fact check, and debate? Do we make a judgment based on a co-authorship from the early 1970s for example or do we consider room for growth and changing ideologies of people? Whittaker Chambers for example who went from being a communist to anti-communist. Do we make assessments of people based on co-authorship done nearly 38 years ago?