Not_Now.Soon says: "I remember a French mayor after a Muslim terror attack say that this is the world we live in now. (I've heard that line of reasoning again elsewhere but can't place it where)."

How about these similar pathetic statements from Islamic apologists.

Muslim, London Mayor, Sadiq Khan says: "terror attacks are 'part and parcel' of living in a major city'.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-terrorism-attacks-part-and-parcel-major-cities-new-york-bombing-a7322846.html

Muslim, Waleed Aly says: "terrorism is a perpetual irritant".
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/bomb-response-refreshingly-honest-20130418-2i2tn.html

Islamic terrorism is a continuing atrocity / atrocities.
Islamic terrorism can not be denied.
Islamic terrorism is MUCH more serious than the appalling actions of responding morons.

The clear commands within the Quran, need to be challenged.

"We are trying to seek out the *best* ideas - white supremacist ideology is not among them."

No it's not, but multiculturalism certainly isn't the best ideology either.

White Supremacists?
- Anyone would think that Aussies were all high-ranking members of the KKK in the True Blue Australia days -

Stop Spreading Lies!

If you believe in democracy;
- Then I have a democratic right to say I believe we should have less immigration, and no more Muslims.

- And no vilifying me and saying "That's hate speech".
Why?
- Because democracy means 'I' get the right to choose what I want, and you have no right whatsoever to try to manipulate me in my choice.

Democracy means the people get to decide what they want, END OF STORY.
It DOESN'T MEAN choosing between a short list of PC options that have been previously vetted by the PC police.

After reading the linked article 'What Are the Limits of Viewpoint Diversity?', I've decided I want to have a second crack at this;
- A more well thought out response, if you will -

I never went to University, I don't have a 'learned' knowledge and intellect.
I somehow developed my own ways of seeing things and figuring things out.
When I was young, I had an attitude of general close-mindedness and ignorance whilst also somehow being a bit of a know it all (like many kids I guess);
- But I learned the hard way to look at 'The bigger picture', and I realised I didn't know all that much at all.

Eventually I came to approach issues simply on the basis of Pro's and Con's.
On this basis I learned there are 'Pro's and Con's for every single issue and topic you can think of.
I even learned that there are even Pro's for things that most people would agree are morally reprehensible.
- Say murder and pedophilia
- (I'll leave the explanation for another time, but I'll make the point I'm not advocating these things)

When I started taking an interest in social and political issues I deliberately wanted to know all the 'potential viewpoints' on an issue in order to see 'The bigger picture'.
I understood that I needed to see all the potential viewpoints in order to see the bigger picture;
- In order to make a well informed and rational position on a particular topic.

This also changed the way I approached my own 'ideas'.
If I came up with a particular idea, I'd try to 'foolproof' it;
I'd try to find every single potential 'flaw' in an 'idea and the potential outcome';
- By considering every single potential viewpoint.

I refined my way of thinking even more.
I started to understand the following ideology, or heuristics, as you call it:
(which I think goes againt that described in your linked article -Quote "Especially vexing is that we don’t even have reliable heuristics to determine resolution.")

[Cont.]

Here it is:
'The way to the truth on ANY ISSUE is to separate arguments that DO hold merit from those that DON'T.'
This path takes into account the 'flat earth viewpoint in regards to astronomy' example, but excludes it because 'It DOES NOT hold merit'.
- And it makes the previous argument in the linked article valid.
QUOTE "Once we start moving down the certainty ladder, the division between fully resolved technical matters and wicked problems starts to break down."
That's correct, and therefore, there IS valid 'heuristics'.
- There is a path to getting to the bottom of all issues and finding the best way forward.

'Truth, Ethics and Arguments that HOLD Merit'.

If the path to the truth REQUIRES separating arguments that DO hold merit from those that DON'T;
- Then we need to look at EVERY SINGLE VIEWPOINT, and the arguments that DON'T hold merit need to be explored anyway;
- As part of a process to 'foolproof' every argument and find every 'flaw'.

Lets look at 'The Bigger Picture'.

(Maybe I still am in some ways)

Left-leaning progressive students are having conniptions at anything they find emotionally challenging.
They can't comprehend that other people have a different perspective on things.

I don't disagree with what your student wrote, however your students started with this:
"How do we talk about viewpoint diversity without being accused of being a fascist?"
- That tells me they are already close-minded and indoctrinated to a certain way of thinking already.
Now, I shouldn't be so hard on the progressive left Uni students, I was an ignorant know it all once too and maybe still am in some ways;
- But if they had any sense at all about them, they'd understand that they NEED to explore ALL the Pro's and Con's of a particular issue as part of a process in order to get to the truth.

[Cont.]

You touch on this at the end of your article:

"My fear is that too few people realize that this is, in fact, our only way out."

Yep, obviously, I know this and my education never got past Year 10.
(And this is why people like me wonder what on earth Uni's are teaching the millenial snowflakes of today if you cant even teach them how to use their own brains properly.)
Uni students today run around with fingers in their ears screaming 'LAlalalalalalala - I'm not listening, you're triggering me"

But there is no limit on viewpoints - you MUST invite ALL viewpoints to expand your own understanding.
You have to assess the validity of ideas, not be emotionally frightened of 'going there'.
- The only thing that matters is whether or not a viewpoint does or does not hold merit.

In a social or political context teaching kids that there's a limit to viewpoint diversity is in effect teaching them that its ok to be hypocritical.
"My left-learning 'learned' perspective is correct, and your right-wing perspective is invalid and should not even be given a platform or consideration."

Your ideas ARE 'flawed', do you realise this?
You're actually neutering their brains, with University essentially pumping out retards.

- I can see that you're honestly trying to help fix things though. -

"The terrorist cannot be allowed to succeed in his purpose by sowing still more resentment, distrust, and contempt against one another."

Another valid argument is that:
Islam and Muslims growing population in Australia itself sows resentment, distrust, and contempt against one another.

- Would you alternatively like to argue that statement is invalid?

Or; It may be just as valid to say they (not personally but mass immigration generally) might be the cause, with the terrorist act being the effect.

- Would you like to argue that this statement is also invalid?

All that really matters if whether or not an issue HOLDS MERIT.

White supremacy is just the latest catch-cry of the insipid racists of the Left !