Actually, Phin, what best "reveals the intellectual weakness of our profession" is arguing for the effective no-platforming of someone because his views are somehow "not a refreshing new voice". I don't agree with him, but I can handle the argument. And we need more argument not more censoriousness, thank you. Why should we be fed just the usual anodyne architectural guff. Why should we be fed only what you'd be happy to allow us to consume? Disagree with Patrik, that is your right, but to argue, to pressurise that the press should refuse to engage with him and his views is outright scandalous.
Actually, Phin, what best "reveals the intellectual weakness of our profession" is arguing for the effective no-platforming of someone because his views are somehow "not a refreshing new voice". I don't agree with him, but I can handle the argument. And we need more argument not more censoriousness, thank you. Why should we be fed just the usual anodyne architectural guff. Why should we be fed only what you'd be happy to allow us to consume? Disagree with Patrik, that is your right, but to argue, to pressurise that the press should refuse to engage with him and his views is outright scandalous.