3 ms·

Yes I understand and am sympathetic with you on the specific case. However I see a strong risk of this attitude spreading to infect public discourse more widely

Yes I understand and am sympathetic with you on the specific case. However I see a strong risk of this attitude spreading to infect public discourse more widely. As is now happening with I believe potentially catastrophic consequences. I am suggesting that shelving individual judgements, at least as a default, in the interests of a healthy polity might usually be the wiser course. The risks of public civility breaking down usually seem to me to be more significant than the risks of the likes of Kissenger getting an occasional airing. Kissenger may not (and does not in my view) 'deserve' any respect. But the concept of debate being a means of dealing with conflict to be preferred over more primitive recourses does.

jim-jim-jim 9y ago
>I am suggesting that shelving individual judgements, at least as a default, in the interests of a healthy polity might usually be the wiser course. It looks like we're mostly on the same page then. I understand the value of civil discourse; I come from a conservative family and I had openly fascist friends in university. Me, my parents, and those friends didn't find much to agree on, but I came to a better understanding of my own beliefs through our exchanges. When somebody says "I can't read X" or "I can't listen to Y," it's usually to their detriment. But liberal high-mindedness has its limits. I personally draw mine at architects of mass murder. I don't think refusing somebody like Kissinger a platform has to indicate a trend towards incivility, since most humans--no matter what they believe--haven't killed thousands of people.