6 ms·

Speaking of interviews, there's an interesting event in Australia at the moment. A program on the ABC called Q&A invited a person suspected of terrorism onto t

Speaking of interviews, there's an interesting event in Australia at the moment. A program on the ABC called Q&A invited a person suspected of terrorism onto the program. That in itself isn't fascinating (at least to me). The Australian Prime Minister has threatened one of the countries News Sources (ie. the ABC who aired the show), this includes a change of leadership of ABC - and as the ABC is government funded, almost certainly funding cuts. The government has clearly threatened a media outlet - not for being prejudiced, but for allowing a view to be expressed. It's fascinating people think an interview between Stalin and Wells is a W-T-F. What better way to understand differing views than to sit down and talk. I really don't understand the notion that suppressing an argument will make it go away. It reminds me of security through obfuscation.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
> What better way to understand differing views than to sit down and talk. I really don't understand the notion that suppressing an argument will make it go away. It reminds me of security through obfuscation. Not only suppressing your oposition is a wrong way to go if you care about "understanding differing views", it seems to me as a pretty lame way to do things even if you want to just get rid of it. A better way is to figure out a way to satisfy them somehow, so that they lose momentum. Why not, instead of directly silencing your opponent, go to him and say: "We hear you, we understand you're angry, people have a right to hear it. you know what? How about we give you a late-night talk show. We can talk to the News Source, they'll open up a slot for you. You'll even get paid properly, so you can funnel this money into furthering your cause if you so choose." And then you can just sit and watch how your oposition disappears into background.
emmelaich 11y ago
Um .. everyone agrees that inviting him on the show was a mistake. The host of Q&A, the director of the ABC included. That was even without knowing he had made loathsome threats against women on twitter. We're a fair way away from a simple airing of differing views here.
david-given 11y ago
I think you may have misunderstood me --- I wasn't going 'wtf why is this abomination allowed', I was going 'wtf here are two huge figures from history who I would never have thought would meet each other, meeting each other'.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> What better way to understand differing views than to sit down and talk. I really don't understand the notion that suppressing an argument will make it go away. It reminds me of security through obfuscation. Not only suppressing your oposition is a wrong way to go if you care about "understanding differing views", it seems to me as a pretty lame way to do things even if you want to just get rid of it. A better way is to figure out a way to satisfy them somehow, so that they lose momentum. Why not, instead of directly silencing your opponent, go to him and say: "We hear you, we understand you're angry, people have a right to hear it. you know what? How about we give you a late-night talk show. We can talk to the News Source, they'll open up a slot for you. You'll even get paid properly, so you can funnel this money into furthering your cause if you so choose." And then you can just sit and watch how your oposition disappears into background.

emmelaich 11y ago

Um .. everyone agrees that inviting him on the show was a mistake. The host of Q&A, the director of the ABC included. That was even without knowing he had made loathsome threats against women on twitter. We're a fair way away from a simple airing of differing views here.

david-given 11y ago

I think you may have misunderstood me --- I wasn't going 'wtf why is this abomination allowed', I was going 'wtf here are two huge figures from history who I would never have thought would meet each other, meeting each other'.