>It really says a lot about the linked article in question where the best arguments he had for debate were allowing Nazi view points and pedophiles. WTF? Those

>It really says a lot about the linked article in question where the best arguments he had for debate were allowing Nazi view points and pedophiles. WTF? Those were not the "best arguments he had for debate," he made it pretty clear that those were in fact his softest targets that his detractors could use to shut down debate. Which they accomplished. I'm not saying I agree with Alexander's position, I usually have a lot of problems with anything he tags "things I will regret writing." But the one thing that's patently obvious about him from his writing, is his commitment to arguing the point even if it means straying into taboo topics that are much more easily avoided. As far as I can tell, that's sorta "the rationalists" _thing_. It's not my thing, but that doesn't mean I don't get what they're going for. To characterize "allowing Nazi view points and pedophiles" as the _point_, rather than _an unfortunate consequence_ is an uncharitable take on their thing.