[rayiner]

If I think your ideas are morally wrong and getting people killed, I am compelled to either try and stop you, or resign myself to cowardly inaction. I of course choose cowardly inaction—I’m selfish and enjoy the comfort of my life and don’t want to disturb it. But I don’t try to make that out to be a virtue!

[gizmo686]

Why do you think his ideas are morally wrong. In my experience, almost every disagreement that is perceived to be moral is actual factual. That is to say, we have a disagreement on what the consequences of certain actions will be. These disagreements could be deeply rooted in ideology (as in, what is the consequences of wealth inequality), but are factual, nor moral.

Further, by not engaging, you miss the opportunity to present why you think his ideas are wrong. If people hear both sides, they can make an informed choice. If they hear neither side, they can only make an uninformed choice. If you think this arrangement benefits you, I would question how confident you are in your beliefs.

[ericd]

The way to stop people like him without killing the foundation of our democracy is to explain rationally why his ideas are terrible and why no one should listen to them, not to prevent him from speaking at all. No one is suggesting that you do nothing.

[rayiner]

Debating ideas is one thing. Thoughts are thoughts. Inviting architects of mass death to speak at your university is another thing. Thinkers and speakers get to pull the academic debate card. You should be able to say whatever the heck you want. But once you’ve got blood on your hands you’ve gotta be judged your actions, not on your ideas.

[gizmo686]

So unless their ideas end up working perfectly in practice, we should close our ears to anyone who has practical experience?

[tptacek]

That's a weird and ugly dichotomy, between organizing and ordering the mass killing of thousands of innocent children, and "working perfectly in practice". How many children before it stops being an oopsie-daisy?

[gtf21]

Yes but in the long run, unless you are to be crowned the ultimate arbiter of what ideas are correct, the only effective way to do this is to persuade people (sometimes including the aforementioned immoral actor) that these actions are wrong. The alternative is constant policing of every action, instead of trying to shape the way decisions are made.