I completely disagree with the notion that we are
required to listen to terrible ideas that are completely without basis in fact, and treat them as if they are worthy of consideration on equal footing as ideas which are supported by substantial factual backup and expert endorsement. Some ideas are so groundless that the correct thing to do is simply ignore them and their proponents (which is what I'm advocating in this thread). Here's a scientific article discussing the
psychological phenomenon of falsehood repetition, showing that a repeated falsehood becomes true for someone who hears it often enough. Giving baseless claims equal consideration is exactly what gives them oxygen and perpetuates them.
The ideas Kyrie is spreading have already spawned a multi-million-dollar verdict, with more likely forthcoming. Those ideas have been proven to be factually unfounded and have
already been shown to be toxic and dangerous. I'm merely advocating that those ideas be fully rejected.
I have never suggested shutting Kyrie out of the marketplace of ideas. He can say whatever he wants. I'm not advocating censoring him or making any statement at all about him. I'm advocating ignoring him completely, and doing so at the institutional level. Deprive him of the inherent gravitas of due consideration. He is selling a bad product, and if given a forum, has shown a propensity to do so again. His ideas are not a worthy addition to the marketplace, and we should impose a fine, much like one was imposed on Ford for selling Pintos with known-defective gas tanks.
Ford endured that treatment and improved their car-making practices. It is my hope that similar treatment may do the same for Kyrie and his dangerous and defective ideas.
I believe we have exhausted this line of inquiry, so I will likely refrain from further response.