Which reasons are not being addressed?
..start with post #69. imo this is reason enough to shut down the event. instead of a debate on whether or not these are valid reasons for shutting down the events the debate moves to a theoretical level of whether bannon benefits or not. with some creating scenarios to back up their positions. as if the important issue here is bannon himself. i say he is not..the response to him is.
What an odd response -- of course the issue of whether Bannon benefits is central to which response is best.
..not for the coalition and not for me.
Again I addressed that post directly: nothing in that post addresses an argument about why it is better to ban him. They speak to what he is and not how to deal with him and the risks of the response making him stronger. I spoke to this at length. How can you say I did not?
It is my argument that has not been responded to.
..the post doesn't talk about banning bannon. banning was injected into the conversation upthread, not from the coalition.
..here is just one quote from the piece that hasn't been addressed.
quote:
The line between respectful debate representing diverse views and providing a platform for views that are violent in their intent can be a fine one. Bannon seeks to dismantle the very principles that enabled his participation in this debate. By offering him the space to articulate his outlook, the Munk Debates imply their legitimacy. It confers respectability on them. Bannon’s remarks and influence have real consequences for us, for all Torontonians, and for the majority of people around the world. Indeed, these consequences are concrete for countless groups and individuals every day.
I disagree. Trying to suppress confers more power to his ideas.
I absolutely disagree that holding a debate confers legitimacy or respectability to one side of it.
I disagree that these debates are designed to address Bannon's views on anything other than the resolution. If he gets into his hate ideas, then arrest him. Warn him beforehand even. Greet him with protest. But to claim that the debate on populism is an endorsement of an opinion on something else is needlessly doing what you say you are trying to avoid.
I also disagree that Bannon speaking in Toronto has greater consequences in Toronto than him speaking in Atlanta other than the opportunity to respond to him with protest. People can hear him in toronto regardless.
Sure it is unfortunate that he was invited. But trying (and probably failing) to get him uninvited is more likely to have a negative effect on Toronto than letting him come and giving him the biggest protest we can muster.
..i know you disagree. so i'll leave it at that for now. maybe a new development will spur another exchange beteen us on the subject.
Sure -- there is no fundamental disagreement here in my opinion but one of tactics and the best response.
