You choose to run away from reality, that's your problem not mine...PH & AAJ both are a sleuth, brainwashing their students into picking up arms - that's the reality
I disagree with you, I used to think this way before I had the fortune to read up on parts of our history that are intentionally left out. I think I got lucky, I certainly don’t see myself as being more capable than others in this regard.
These two guys may have dissenting opinions from the mainstream narrative, I would ask you to kindly read their banned material, and evaluate for yourself the work on three different levels:
- Do these arguments and viewpoint hold any weight? Do I agree with them? If not, you will probably have counter-arguments that form the basis of a healthy debate.
- Are what they are saying very morally objectionable? We should all try to empathise with the other side when making this determination.
- Is there (or should there be) a legal basis for banning this particular material or censoring it? We must keep in mind that we’re a democracy, unwelcome views shouldn’t necessarily be illegal.
I think if you read their material (non selectively), you will find that they both talk about a breadth of subjects in social sciences. And I’m sure on the first point you will find things you don’t agree with, that’s fine, I also don’t agree with AAJ on a bunch of things. His preference for socialistic forms of economic organisation I think is particularly idealistic and based on incomplete analysis. Also, for the accusation of brainwashing students and making them pick up arms, I’m more familiar than most about their work. I seriously doubt any of this is even remotely true. So I’m calling it out until I see some evidence, which is reasonable. Innocent till proven guilty. The burden of proof lies upon the claimants, who I this case are their critics and those who ban them and their work.
On three points... 1) I’m sure you’ll disagree with them on some points, but that’s normal. I’d look forward to hear your counter arguments. 2) I think you may find some parts morally objectionable, but that can’t be true of everything, like I said I actually think you’ll see some reason in their arguments too. 3) I think if you do an honest accounting of their work, you will find that our objection to banning these works is understandable. And maybe you yourself won’t agree with this form of censorship.
And let’s remember, all this is predicated upon what I’m calling looking at their work ‘non selectively’ and giving an honest accounting. Meaning you have to read their views and then discuss them, instead of cherry picking by quick googling a few out of context quotes with which to prove in a confrontational debate that your preconceived opinion of their work is valid.
Honestly, we can start by taking a video lecture or book published by either men. And you and I can have a civil, honest, and in-depth discussion about what they’ve said. It’ll be a lot more valid than me saying they’re right about everything and you saying they’re wrong.
Apologies for any grammatical errors or issues, I typed this out quickly on mobile.