> but these people never really materialize or if they do no one can quantify that they are anything more than some random extremist. It seems that we're comme

> but these people never really materialize or if they do no one can quantify that they are anything more than some random extremist. It seems that we're commenting on an article where just such a person materialized, and their impact can be quantified: a well-qualified speaker was dropped from a conference. > They are (in my mind) the same people that view Native Americans being offended at the existence of the Washington Redskins as people that are making "a bit fuss over nothing." I admit I don't follow sports enough to know the details of that brouhaha so I don't know if someone (or many someones) of American Indian descent were the ones calling for the change or if it was a "disinterested" third party. Either way, the opinions and preferences of the community at large must be weighed against those of the dissenters. In my opinion we already have an extremely effective means of recourse for those who take offense - the free market, which can be impacted by direct means (boycott) or indirect means (convincing others to support your view).