Milo made excellent arguments until he made his life about why he should be allowed to speak wherever he wanted.

Then it became about his obnoxious behavior and personality brand and today he is incoherent, obsessed with his own status and being abusive.

Owens made some good arguments too. Then it became about her and how far she could push things. Then she fell down the antisemitic rabbithole and she either believes all this idiocy or knows she can make money and stay famous by pretending she does.

Crowder was funny. I went on his show. He made fun of exactly what we needed at the right time. He shared good conservative messages.

Then we found out how he treated his employees and more importantly, his wife.

Fuentes started a brand on being taboo around race and antisemitism and misogyny and anything else that would get him attention. He never made an argument worth debating. He just said whatever got cheers from people desperate for validation against the left.

Tate built a brand on a caricature fantasy of some James Bond villain who demolished feminist history and took back man's rightful position.

Cars, suits, watches, cigars, pools, blathering about being a ruthless superhuman athlete and any other passing teenage boy manosphere obsession.

...while also posting endless videos describing and boasting of truly horrific behavior towards women.

Real or fake, it's the image he chose.

This is not about speech or honoring our commitment to the marketplace of ideas.

I don't want to associate myself with, let alone promote these individuals because of who they've chosen to be.

It's not an issue of, 'ideas.'
It's an issue of basic decency.
But it's also practical.
They offer nothing.
Absolutely nothing.