Mark Gagnon

So I've heard a criticism of like centrism generally is that it offers equal weight to two ideas when one of them deserves little weight.

I see.

Okay.

Maybe, I think that makes sense.

I'm curious, like, what would be the line for this?

So, like, September of the 11th, right?

There's, in my opinion, as an American, this was a terrorist attack taken course by, you know, Al-Qaeda radicals.

Okay.

Should there be a competing Wikipedia entry for the Al-Qaeda side that is the freedom fighter that was basically doing an act of war against American meddling in the Middle East?

Is it possible that these two articles in tandem could lead people to believe that, oh, there's actually two really good sides to this?

Right.

Yeah, I can see that from like a theological or almost, you know, sort of a hypothetical kind of framework.

But I guess once it gets into concrete events where people feel very emotionally about them, this type of, you know, this multitude of different opinions, I can see that being offensive.

But I guess in the desire for neutrality, you have to allow some people to be offended by the framing of certain articles.

Yeah, I mean, I've always sort of taken the perspective that, I think it was Aquinas that said that the truth fears no interrogation.

That, you know, if, like, whatever the truth is can be sort of, you know, scrutinized and attacked, but because it is the truth sort of in a capital T sense, if there is such a thing, that it will sort of withstand these attacks.

And that I would hope that

human beings with the ability to reason and, you know, apply the, you know, sort of the principles of logic can see something and see all of the information without any type of censorship and draw similar conclusions.

That's my hope.

Yeah.