Quote:
Originally Posted by Clovis8
No, even when those people are completely wrong headed. Debates, especially those when one side is so obviously correct, are won when the idiotic side gets to speak and be shown for what they are.
This hinges on the assumption that everyone ultimately responds in the same way to the same things. Fascists and their apologists may be evil, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. We have no reason to assume that their desire for mainstream exposure undermines their aims unbeknownst to them. Absent some powerful case to that effect, we should assume that they are entirely correct in pursuing it - that it's good for them and good for their goals.
The left has seriously got to shake off this ****ing West Wing **** where Principled Debate will Win The Day if you just, like, debate hard enough or craft just the right gotcha or whatever. Like when Pence went to Hamilton and the cast did that stupid
We hope, Mr Vice-President-Elect, that our hip-hop-infused musico-historical comedy has INSPIRED you to blah blah blah. One look at Mike Pence and you know the only thing that's ever inspired him is dashcam footage of a queerbashing.
Milo Hanrahan-Hanrahan has a blog and a podcast and a whatever the **** else. His free speech - even in the most liberal interpretation of 'free speech' possible, where boycotts and the like represent incursion on it - is not affected by refusing to have him on a popular TV show. Anyone who's curious can find out what he thinks. Anyone susceptible to his message will not be insulated by the presence of a Principled Debater. 'Oppose whatever reactionaries are seeking' is a good enough rule of thumb here.