From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Dangerous Ideas
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:45:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.164442.3693@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) wrote:
>| | >| ... I think Andrea Dworkin is a dangerous reactionary. ...
>
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| >| >Clearly, if Andrea Dworkin is dangerous in any general way,
>| >| >it is because of her words and ideas, rather than her 
>| >| >physical acts or political power.
>
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>| >| I disagree, she is dangerous because of her ideas -and- her political
>| >| power to implement them. Without political clout, she is just another
>| >| extremist.
>
>gf:
>| >I don't think Andrea Dworkin has any direct political
>| >power, that is, I don't think she is empowered to order
>| >others about.  Influence, yes; authority, no.  However,  
>| >can you elucidate what you mean by political power?  So 
>| >far the only public activities I have seen attributed 
>| >to Dworkin have been statements, articles, books, and the 
>| >like, in other words, ideas.
>
>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>| She wrote and was instrumental in establishing, along with Catherine 
>| MacKinnon, the anti-pornography statute in Indianapolis that was
>| struck down by the Hudnut case.
>| 
>| Ironically, that statute proposed the banning of certain literature
>| because it had dangerous ideas. ...
>
>I can see I erred in using the term "political power."  What
>I was talking about was institutional authority.  There is
>no doubt, I think, that someone possessing institutional 
>authority can be thereby dangerous -- for instance, a 
>dictator.

You seem to be making a distinction for where there is no real
difference. How is it that you can ignore the above and try to
define around it?
 
>Andrea Dworkin does not, as far as I know, have any
>institutional authority.  

So, neither does Hillary Clinton, neither did Roosevelts wife.
Despite this technicality, many are concerned about similar situations.

>                             What she does is write books,

So did Emanual Kant. 

>deliver lectures, and appear on television; that is,
>disseminate her ideas.  If she is dangerous, it is because
>her ideas are dangerous.  The same for Ralph Nader or the
>NRA or the American Renaissance Party.

Again, a distinction without a difference. She and her ideas are
inserperable. And like Dworkin, the NRA and Nader are active in
asserting their ideas. 
 
>What I'd like to focus on, using Andrea Dworkin as a good
>working example, is whether ideas are dangerous, and if so,
>if the people who originate those ideas are dangerous.  Eric
>Pepke said he thought so, at least in her case.  I'd like to
>analyze the concept of "dangerous idea."
 
Were Immanual Kant's ideas "dangerous"? Or are a few bloody revolutions
good for a society? I guess they keep things from getting stale.

>As a related issue, I'd like to know what those who believe
>certain ideas are dangerous think we should do about them,
>if anything.

Yes, I believe certain ideas are dangerous. I used to think that they
would not be effective unless the population has nothing to lose. But
this is not the case for Dworkin and feminist extremists, or Pat Robertson,
and the religious right. So I suspect the trigger point is more of a
perceprtion. These are not old well developed ideas, so I may amend
as I go along.

>-- 
>
> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory