The brief after-talk Q&A was instructive. The primary argument posed against free speech and open inquiry seems to be grounded in excessive empathy: bite your tongue and self-censor so as not to upset other people's feelings--which apparently is the same thing as challenging their "identity". Thus, while I agree with Bari that we need to…
The brief after-talk Q&A was instructive. The primary argument posed against free speech and open inquiry seems to be grounded in excessive empathy: bite your tongue and self-censor so as not to upset other people's feelings--which apparently is the same thing as challenging their "identity". Thus, while I agree with Bari that we need to be courageous speakers, perhaps what we need more are courageous listeners. When someone disagrees with you (or me), that is not a personal attack; it is just a difference of opinion. To love and respect someone--or some group of people--is not to always express agreement with them. Instead, love and respect is expressed through honest and open dialog and ultimate acceptance of who we differently are.
The brief after-talk Q&A was instructive. The primary argument posed against free speech and open inquiry seems to be grounded in excessive empathy: bite your tongue and self-censor so as not to upset other people's feelings--which apparently is the same thing as challenging their "identity". Thus, while I agree with Bari that we need to be courageous speakers, perhaps what we need more are courageous listeners. When someone disagrees with you (or me), that is not a personal attack; it is just a difference of opinion. To love and respect someone--or some group of people--is not to always express agreement with them. Instead, love and respect is expressed through honest and open dialog and ultimate acceptance of who we differently are.