by igorfrankensteen wrote:This seems to be another example of a very common scenario I see repeated over and over. A basic challenge to a society which wants to be open to genuinely understanding and investigating all viewpoints, while still maintaining a core set of it's own values.
This one suffers the most common confusions as well. First, there's the titling of the theme of the group, "Dangerous Ideas," which the OP correctly points out, sets itself up for this exact kind of problem. As in, if you ARE going to claim to provide a space to actually examine "dangerous ideas," you are going to occasionally have to deal with actually dangerous ideas.
That in turn, leads directly to confronting the worry that some ideas are so destructive, that even to allow them to be calmly voiced, could be damaging to a society.
But THAT valid, and interesting concern, often gets smudged aside by the people who think it is necessary to prove their righteous fidelity to their opposition to such ideas, by shouting them down even before THAT concern is addressed.
And at that juncture, we arrive yet again, just as these players did, at the point where someone (genuinely or not) points out that righteously refusing to even hear the idea, demonstrates that some lofty claims of belief in Freedom of Speech really are just propaganda.
For myself, I recognize that giving a hearing to actual "dangerous ideas," can award them undeserved stature, simply by allowing those who speak them to be accorded the level of respect reserved for guest speakers. But then, this is what makes it a challenge worthy of praise, to actually fight for real freedom of speech and of ideas. It isn't the physical fighting for freedom that is tough (most of the time). It's the real work that these kinds of situations present to us that are tough.
I've directly witnessed a few similar situations myself. In some cases, it was true that the people who were going to make the presentation were, in fact, ingenuous slime-balls, intent on some sort of snow job, to weaken opposition to some really horrible things. Other times though, a real exploration for the sake of useful understanding of a subject area that we needed to know more about in order to fight against it, was prevented by the panic of the more self-righteous of the "paws over eyes" monkeys in our midst.
The article associated with this thread seems to suggest that the guy who was supposed to make the presentation was suspect. It's hard to be sure, because I've seen plenty of cases where someone after the fact did unjustifiably claim persecution or prejudice, but only because "that's what people do" in such situations. In other words, just because someone plays the race card in a knee-jerk fashion, for example, doesn't mean either that there was no racism, or that they were wrong to protest the decision.
what u say is interesting and has its merit but why give space to those who in a position of power will deny it to us?. Its not a charity shop, if they want to be heard, they must give us some space as well. Else we shall only become more and more softer to these likes and soon there is a apologist trade , if its not there to begin with.
