Hi. I'm the Mario mentioned at 40:59. I'm actually the victim's attorney. Happy to talk.

Lex's presumption is incorrect as the place to end, but it is correct as a place to start.

However wrong the Russian position may be, if unheard, it cannot be disarmed with logic. He makes it possible for them to be heard.

The alternative-politics of rhetorical obliteration-persuades no one.

Why are the only alternatives that he is (a) serious or (b) stealing the limelight? Room for nuance? Asking for an absurd thing to make a lesser, yet-unspoken thing seem reasonable? Fits his MO and common hardline negotiating tactic in US.

Unfortunately reductionist take, without your perspicacity

Query on efficacy or fairness of responding to someone on a different platform where you specifically avoided that individual. Would be more fair to call him out on x. If you were Joe Lunchbox, I'd have a different view, but you're not just a Joe Lunchbox and haven't been for a long while.

Suggests intellectual honesty and integrity. Points to Grok. I asked and got a similar result, but in my version Grok also noted tradeoffs.

Hard disagree, but wish you well.

Sadly true.

Folks who actually disagree with your position at a fundamental level will not mirror you by "unsubscribing" in kind.

I disagree with him as well--on different grounds, but I appreciate your ideas. Too bad his ideas can't be used in that marketplace of ideas now. And I don't think his personal imprimatur is THAT valuable to justify the smaller audience.

But he's important enough to me that I joined to listen.

I don't know that we're having a good time yet. It feels more like a necessary and somewhat annoying requirement to follow certain left leaning folks I happen to like a lot, but definitely not fun.

I think there is a bias war. Maintaining an appearance of political neutrality will mean, for now, using multiple platforms.

I think reasonable minds could also find flaws in the analysis, as well as subtle evidence of partisan bias distinct from your usual reasoned, unpartisan approach.

I am a free speech attorney. I think you have three critical shortcomings in your analysis. (1) resistance to government-based viewpoint control should be a fourth factor; (2) that lone study admits it has a flaw you do not discuss; (3) Bluesky appears mainly left-leaning in content.

This was one of your best videos. Thanks. I have discussed the principles with people on a number of occasions.