Color, religion, country, education, gender, ... even what you eat or not, everything that is used to classify, sort, rank, ”nomen(k)(c)lature” becomes a weapon to set us against each other.
Of course racist (of all kinds) lies, and other biases meant to target such or such category of people are unbearable and must be unveiled - even if I wonder where is the limit between the current deleterious ”woke” attitude and a sane protest against injustice.
When does humanity become wise enough to apply the basic rule : ”live and let live” (as long as no one harms anyone else) ?
"But the decision should NOT be based on the wrongheaded notion that racists have a RIGHT to speak; they don’t!" Well, John this refutes (incorrectly) your advocacy of having a pro-war representative speak at the Vietnam teach-in, and was rounded defeated by the anti-war argument, much to the edification of the audience. Same thing applies to racism! Let them speak and subject the speaker to withering counter arguments on moral and political grounds.
My words that you quoted, far from refuting my having, in 1968, invited the Assistant Secretary of State for Southeast Asian Affairs to the Vietnam Teach-in that I organized at Dartmouth College to argue the pro-war side, are perfectly consistent with what I did then. Here's why:
My words in my recent Substack post include a prior sentence that you seem not to have read. The words in my post read:
"The decision whether or not to physically prevent a racist from giving a lecture or an invited talk depends ONLY on whether doing so would increase or decrease the number of people influenced by that racist. This is a judgment call. But the decision should NOT be based on the wrongheaded notion that racists have a RIGHT to speak; they don’t!"
In the case of the Vietnam War teach in held in 1968 when most of the students supported the Vietnam War, the best way to persuade them that the war was wrong was to let them see the pro-war government official get exposed as a liar, which is exactly what happened. The decision whether or not to have a pro-war speaker was--in perfect keeping with my recent Substack post's words--based on whether inviting the pro-war government official to speak would increase or decrease the number of people influenced by the deceitful pro-war propaganda. It was because inviting this pro-war official would decrease the number of people influenced by that pro-war propaganda--and ONLY for that reason and NOT because he had a RIGHT to speak--that I invited him.
Jon. Do you really not understand this? Do you wish, perhaps, to retract your comment? Or are you really arguing that racists have a RIGHT to spread racist propaganda at all times, including when doing so would increase the number of people who beleive it? Please clarify.
Color, religion, country, education, gender, ... even what you eat or not, everything that is used to classify, sort, rank, ”nomen(k)(c)lature” becomes a weapon to set us against each other.
Of course racist (of all kinds) lies, and other biases meant to target such or such category of people are unbearable and must be unveiled - even if I wonder where is the limit between the current deleterious ”woke” attitude and a sane protest against injustice.
When does humanity become wise enough to apply the basic rule : ”live and let live” (as long as no one harms anyone else) ?
"But the decision should NOT be based on the wrongheaded notion that racists have a RIGHT to speak; they don’t!" Well, John this refutes (incorrectly) your advocacy of having a pro-war representative speak at the Vietnam teach-in, and was rounded defeated by the anti-war argument, much to the edification of the audience. Same thing applies to racism! Let them speak and subject the speaker to withering counter arguments on moral and political grounds.
Jon,
My words that you quoted, far from refuting my having, in 1968, invited the Assistant Secretary of State for Southeast Asian Affairs to the Vietnam Teach-in that I organized at Dartmouth College to argue the pro-war side, are perfectly consistent with what I did then. Here's why:
My words in my recent Substack post include a prior sentence that you seem not to have read. The words in my post read:
"The decision whether or not to physically prevent a racist from giving a lecture or an invited talk depends ONLY on whether doing so would increase or decrease the number of people influenced by that racist. This is a judgment call. But the decision should NOT be based on the wrongheaded notion that racists have a RIGHT to speak; they don’t!"
In the case of the Vietnam War teach in held in 1968 when most of the students supported the Vietnam War, the best way to persuade them that the war was wrong was to let them see the pro-war government official get exposed as a liar, which is exactly what happened. The decision whether or not to have a pro-war speaker was--in perfect keeping with my recent Substack post's words--based on whether inviting the pro-war government official to speak would increase or decrease the number of people influenced by the deceitful pro-war propaganda. It was because inviting this pro-war official would decrease the number of people influenced by that pro-war propaganda--and ONLY for that reason and NOT because he had a RIGHT to speak--that I invited him.
Jon. Do you really not understand this? Do you wish, perhaps, to retract your comment? Or are you really arguing that racists have a RIGHT to spread racist propaganda at all times, including when doing so would increase the number of people who beleive it? Please clarify.