In his defense, he's merely speaking out of Bayesian consequences. There's nothing to dare or not dare about. If you hear people get mugged in a neighborhood more than another, you'd avoid it and possibly speak out against it, but as a consequence, violate all the good people in the neighborhood.
What I feel is lacking, and very much so, is the other side of the perspective. (and by that I don't mean by merely pointing out that opinion is disrespectful; I mean by showing evidence for the opposite of the opinion)
What I feel is lacking, and very much so, is the other side of the perspective. (and by that I don't mean by merely pointing out that opinion is disrespectful; I mean by showing evidence for the opposite of the opinion)