It's of a piece with the opinion, which I strongly hold and have yet to see reason to do otherwise, that the answer to erroneous speech is not less speech but more speech. Hatred is easy and satisfying in the short term. Engagement is hard, and often unsatisfying over any span of time you care to choose. But answering hatred with hatred only adds more hatred to the world. Answering hatred with engagement offers a chance of some more beneficial outcome. But I appreciate not everyone sees the matter as I do.
This is where I think you're completely wrong. I don't talk to someone who sees me as subhuman or irrational because I'm transgender since the vast majority of the time these folks have already concluded that since I'm subhuman and/or irrational that my arguments are invalid. Trying to break through their mental barriers as erected is like trying to dredge the Panama Canal with a tea spoon. Meaning you can do it but it's impractical. So instead of trying to engage folks that already made up their minds it's better to engage folks that are asking honest (even if insensitive) questions. Those are the folks that are worth arguing with because they're not entirely settled on an issue. But fanboys, true believers, kooks, and apologists aren't worth it by any measure. I say this as someone who's been on both sides of the fence so I have a decent understanding of the tactics employed to stay fixed in ones beliefs. I know this offends many a believer in the "market place of ideas" but reality doesn't bend to the idealism of the naive. Reality has to be obeyed to be mastered.
Sure. Same with Rodgers and women. That's why I phrased my original comment as I did:
"Perhaps if some one of his fellow men had engaged with Rodgers..."
1. Extremists are already convinced of their position. To them it's their mission to convince you one way or another (often by dishonest means).
2. Extremists use the notion of free speech to broaden their access to an audience even if that audience is not receptive (no attention like negative attention). Especially since it convinces them of their position if the audience is overtly hostile to their views.
3. Extremists rarely, if ever, analyze their beliefs. Those that do inevitably cease to persist in those beliefs or at very least moderate them significantly.
So the only person that could have ever convinced Rodgers to not murder is Rodgers. Extremism is basically a crude coping mechanism that inevitably harms the person who holds it (but as a consequence it harms everyone else around them). In fact, I'd say that an extremist has a similar set of maladaptive traits as a heroin or meth addict. The difference being they're not biologically addicted to their beliefs, they're merely addicted to the feeling of specialness and their outsider status.
I mean, I don't know! Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. But you seem extremely certain that you are, and I'm not seeing where that certainty originates. Perhaps you know much more about the man than I do.