Editor's note: The following letter is in response the the letter “Racist comments on First Nations Hydro story 'frustrating'
The featured letter to the editor appearing in the April 6 edition of the Northern Life decried the impediment to meaningful debate posed by individuals who resort to insult rather than rational argument to respond to views with which they disagree.
Unfortunately, this phenomenon is not limited to the Internet. In many parts of society, it is growing increasingly difficult to engage in meaningful discussions with people of differing views.
Perhaps most disturbing is that our universities — which should be bastions of free inquiry and the rational debate on which it relies — are in fact some of the most intellectually intolerant places in society.
There are countless reports of speakers at universities silenced by noisily protesting students, or debates cancelled outright due to threats of violence by militant student groups. Sadly, the university administrators, who have the power to protect the integrity of the debates, are often too cowardly to do so.
Those who rely on force and intimidation to defend and promote their ideology do so because they lack the ability to defend it intellectually in a fair debate. This inability stems from both the inherent weakness (falsity) of the ideology, as well as the intellectual weakness of its proponents.
Violence is by no means the only impediment to rational debate. In fact, it often relies on the prior use of another tactic: caricaturing and demonizing one’s ideological adversaries. Doing so justifies and incites the violence against them, and ensures that their views will not get a fair hearing from many people.
The ever-multiplying categories of phobias — islamophobia, transphobia, etc. — exemplify this. There is no need to engage in rational debate when by mere mention of a word someone can convince many people that their adversary is an intolerant, irrational bigot whose views derive from ignorance and fear.
J.P. Rank
Sudbury