Besides the difficulty of working alone, how can anyone challenge something they aren't willing to talk about? If anything is to be done about it, then people will have to start talking eventually, even if only for the purpose of political coordination.

I get that there's the issue of trying to present anything to an uninterested or uneducated audience in a way that they won't get the wrong idea. But assuming beforehand that they will get the wrong idea regardless of what you might do is just assuming failure. If everyone thought this way, nothing would ever be done: slavery, serfdom and child-labor wouldn't ever have ended.

Besides, ideas don't spread like that. Specially morally abhorrent ideas, because being "morally abhorrent" usually implies being politically unfeasible. Even the most terrible regimes tried to whitewash themselves because they knew what they were doing wouldn't fly with the populace.

Who decides what is abhorrent? In what sense? Rational, yet undesirable?

> abhorrent ideas should be confronted

This is an entirely different think. A constructive (cooperative), rational discussion is different from an adversarial debate.

> to allow abhorrent ideas to spread

Again, who decides which ideas are to be silenced? And without discussion, in this case.

You are essentially advocating restricting individual choice, by restricting available information; pushing individuals towards the "correct" viewpoint by banning advocacy of any other. The US, in particular, and many other western countries, were founded on opposition to this philosophy.

BUT, I do think (hope?) we can agree that there are some ideas that are abhorrent. I use the example of race-based slavery above.

Why should I have a rational discussions about the economic benefits of race-based slavery? The cost/benefit analysis just doesn't seem to make sense - the cost is increased visibility of the arguments for race based slavery, and I'm unsure what possible benefits there are.

Well, if you feel confident that race-based slavery is in no way justifiable then it should be relatively easy to find arguments why it is not justifiable, no?

An obvious one would be pointing out largely overlapping intra- and inter-race variances in genetics.

If your race-based-slavery-advocate could actually show that specific races have attributes that make it the utilitarian choice to choose them then they would be making a valid point - on the assumption that it is necessary to have slaves in the first place - and you might want to shift to finding arguments against slavery in general instead of the slaver's specific choice of slaves.

Or you could argue that merit-based slavery is superior to using race as a proxy. E.g. genetic testing or performance evaluations of individuals.

If he is wrong in ways that could be honest mistakes then one should first try to point out the mistakes so he can retract his document until he can find stronger evidence or truly see the error of his ways. For that to happen people need to respond with rational arguments, not with outrage.

If he is wrong and does not respond to counter-arguments and -evidence, then some HR response would be appropriate. And note that I say "HR response", not dogpiling and not necessarily firing.

Argument-by-firing will only harden the ideological frontlines and further extremes.

So your point is that if a racist argument is partially right and good for an employer then it's all good??!

My point is that you should engage in rational discussion even if you think the other side holds an abhorrent, immoral, inhumane viewpoint. And there are many good reasons to do so. And just one of those many reasons is that the other side might be right about some things. Another is that engaging them in discussion is a much better approach of showing them where they are wrong, just punishing someone for holding unpopular views is unlikely to achieve that goal. Another one that I have not mentioned yet is simple reciprocity, you want others to extend that kind openness to discussion towards you when they think you're holding some view that is abhorrent according to their moral value system.

> Why should I have a rational discussions..

I think the question here is whether you can censor other people who want to have that discussion, not whether they can force you to participate.

> I'm unsure what possible benefits there are

But you want to veto the topic anyway? It sounds like you want to win the game without playing. To be considered "right" you must bear the burden of the argument.

I'd note that I'm asking question, and I keep getting "we don't need to discuss that" responses.

> Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of (.+)\?

Yes, it is.

The rest is the discussion why - in particular by pointing out that rational discussion does not automatically imply that abhorrent conclusions will be reached or accepted. The primary thing about rational discussion is that some (or all) participants may be wrong. It's also the difference between discussion and shouting through each other.