Gab on.
The difference, CD, is that the campuses (such as the University of California) are owned by the public, while Cobb's blog is owned by Cobb. In one case the "printing press" is owned by the people, and in the other case the "printing press" is owned by a private party. When one group of people try to prevent another group from using the public printing press, that's one thing, and when a private party sets the bounds as to what is printed on their personal press, that's another.
Now, I'm not speaking for Cobb, no matter what you and Nulan might want to believe, but there it is. Cobb actually went quite a bit further than I would have on my own blog in giving Mr. Nulan his say. I view allowing Mr. Nulan a free page of press in a place other than his own cage as being akin to letting a rabid dog loose in the house with your children, but that's just my opinion. As for Cobb's closing of comments -- you are quite lucky. I typed a lolapolooza of a response to your last comment, but lost it to "comments closed". After all, a guy named Chauncey -- as in "Chancellor of the Royal Privy" -- ought not to go about making scat comments about other commenters.
Personally, I think Cobb was rescuing you and Nulan from me. You guys wallow like garbage scows against warp-driven battlecruisers. But then again, that's my lens and not his. I'll not comment more, at the risk of contributing to the pollution of this post with sub-realistic nuclear waste in the same fashion as happened in the other.
But what if your Conservative brethren are behaving like metaphorical scat throwing monkeys? Or offering authoritarian ideologies akin to Nazism in root if not deed? Just playing devil's advocate. You actually have frequent posters who would suggest that rich people are being treated like Jews in Nazi Germany. Ought that level of foolishness be exposed as such?
I tell myself I won't take the bait from troglodytes such as Uncle--but inevitably I do. Here, I will ignore him.
I am trying to have a mature conversation with you Cobb about an inconsistency in your thought. You advertise yourself as intellectually honest, open, and curious. To ban an interlocutor seems cowardly to me. Especially when such censorship (at least to my eyes) seems done to protect intellectual lightweights like Uncle and others from having hurt feelings. And again, isn't it opposed to the rigors of Conservatism that you ostensibly subscribe to?
Finally, do you want a chorus of agreement, praise, and rubber stamping Cobb? If so that is your right. Or do you want an interesting mix of personalities with whom you may agree with, but often may not?
Quick question that I will ask here because the earlier thread is now closed.
How do you reconcile closing a thread to comments (and/or banning a reader with whom you disagree) in order to protect the "sensibilities" of your conservative readers? Isn't this a bit close to the "safe space" movement among "liberals" and "progressives" on college campuses (I would imagine you most certainly disagreed with in the 1990s)? Moreover, isn't your brand of conservatism a stand on your own, "beware the Nannie State," ideology?
I am legitimately and honestly curious as to how you reconcile this seeming contradiction.