Maybe it's because I just spent three hours watching re-runs of "The West Wing". Maybe it's because I used to be an elected official, and had to deal with more than a few crackpots and nut-jobs with paranoid tendencies. What every it was, the line "My ideas deserve to be heard ..." made me wonder to what extent that's true.
I don't wish to deny anyone the right to hold their ideas, or to speak them (even stupid ones). But the right to speak is not the same as a right to be heard. I saw this as the foundation of the argument. I agree that some honor is due someone who adopts a principled stand and lives by a moral code of conduct, even if I may disagree with the morals or their consequences. But that does not mean they have a right to be heard. The mere existence of an idea does not grant the right to be debated.
Pragmatically, ideas are shared by those who have attention. And the act of obtaining attention reflects—whether it should or not—on the idea itself. That's what the hubbub is about, not whether someone should be allowed to speak.
I had the same thought when reading about "deserve to be heard": does not scale. But the author probably means that if you are going to pay attention to ("waste time with") that person, its their ideas that you should be caring.
I don't wish to deny anyone the right to hold their ideas, or to speak them (even stupid ones). But the right to speak is not the same as a right to be heard. I saw this as the foundation of the argument. I agree that some honor is due someone who adopts a principled stand and lives by a moral code of conduct, even if I may disagree with the morals or their consequences. But that does not mean they have a right to be heard. The mere existence of an idea does not grant the right to be debated.
Pragmatically, ideas are shared by those who have attention. And the act of obtaining attention reflects—whether it should or not—on the idea itself. That's what the hubbub is about, not whether someone should be allowed to speak.