Of course. I agree with all these things.
I just think its funny that someone relying on free speech as a premise for their entire career advocates for killing people who think differently than himself. As if its so difficult to imagine someone would think your ideas and beliefs are extreme enough for them to kill you. Seems super short sighted, and so ironic that it literally makes me chuckle. (Same goes for any group, his is hardly a new or unique idea, either today or in recent, middle, or distant history.)
If its not obvious, I don't follow him and only am just looking at a couple of quotes from themerchant. Maybe he's a stand-up guy with great thoughts, but this particular quote seems silly. Self reflection is hard!
Well, I really don't know much about Harris, in reality either. From what I have seen, he is generally pretty smart. So, chances are good that if he said something, he had a definite agenda in doing so. I mean, the little I have read from him makes it seem that he likes to take some hard-line objectivity stance and then back it up with "scientific" rationale. Possibly a noble endeavor, but flawed all the same...
Taken in isolation, it probably
is true, that some ideas are so detrimental to have and to hold that it would be best that those that hold them simply did not exist. The issue of course is, who gets to be the arbiter of that? What is the threshold criterion for expunging such? The problem comes in the humans are irredeemably (yes, I mean that literally) biased. That includes humans engaged in science. So, I'd distinctly reject the idea that science could or should be the arbiter. So, then, we are back in the lurch for how we could know what is "too dangerous" and what isn't.
I believe the Harris is firmly against any sort of "transcendental" ideas. While objectively factual, you are going to be missing
something with that kind of hard line.