Can ideas be dangerous? No doubt, words can be harmful, and actions can be destructive — but what about mere thoughts and beliefs?
The key determinant in whether or not an idea is dangerous is what we choose to do with it; an idea is dangerous when it exits a person’s mental landscape and enters reality.
For example, your great uncle who believes that COVID-19 is a consequence of 5G technology is no match for the prevailing consensus held by epidemiologists. He certainly doesn’t have the power to influence public health policy by mulling it over on his drive to work, and he doesn’t have the knees or the stamina to burn down the nearest 5G tower anymore. So long his theories sit idle in his head, his ideas cannot be nearly as dangerous as they can be irritating.
In other words, it may seem that mere exposure to claims that are misleading, offensive or inflammatory cannot pose any true risk. Dangerous ideas require an actor to execute risky behavior inspired by them. Otherwise, wouldn’t it make sense to label “dangerous ideas” as simply misleading, offensive or inflammatory — not dangerous?
The taxonomy for what constitutes “risky behavior” is not as cut-and-dry as creating haphazard policy or burning down 5G towers. Suppose a grocery store clerk who also subscribes to this theory opted out of washing their hands during the height of the pandemic, concluding it was safe as there were no pesky 5G towers nearby to infect anybody with the virus. Hundreds of people would have been at a substantially higher risk for contracting COVID-19, not as a result of somebody doing something decidedly risky — but because of someone remaining passive or neglecting to do something.
Disseminating and holding onto misguided beliefs can be just as risky when it comes to labeling ideas as “dangerous.” To mitigate these risks as best we can, it seems to follow that we should suppress the ideas with the potential to cause harm. However, truly parsing out which ideas are dangerous requires deliberation and critical awareness; restricting certain ideas entirely negates opportunities to rigorously engage with them.
At best, expunging certain ideas as a whole promotes total ignorance. At worst, it can violate civil liberty, destroy healthy dissent or even call for senseless lethal force.
Consider the infamous case of McCarthyism of the 1950s. To stamp out any traces of Communist ideology from post-war America, then-Senator Joseph McCarthy launched a series of highly publicized investigative attacks on civil servants and celebrities who he accused of subscribing to Communist ideas.
While little was found to substantiate McCarthy’s accusational claims, they fueled the already prominent anxieties surrounding Communism throughout the nation, leading to a culture of intense surveillance and harsh censorship. Even being “soft” on Communism during the Cold War era was enough to initiate baseless allegations and probing examinations, prompting many to be either absolutely reticent or completely hysterical towards anything except traditional, red-blooded American patriotism.
Taking harsh stances or resorting to fear-fueled silence ultimately proved to be detrimental in the long run. Paranoia spread among the general populace, xenophobia grew more rampant and unlawful abuses of power by U.S. officials occurred unchecked. Significantly, horrific instances of chemical warfare and senseless massacres of innocent civilians were advanced during the Vietnam War, all supposedly under the guise of protecting our country.
It is important to consider that the Soviet Union and its initiatives were an undeniable threat during this time. Totalitarianism under Stalin, man-made famines, rampant political violence and forced labor camps are just a few examples of the heinous acts committed by the USSR. However, containment was not a strategy focused solely on safety. It was largely focused on victory, inspired by a desire for global dominance similar to that of the Soviets. By inspiring passionate misconception and encouraging counterproductive attitudes on self-defense, the U.S. was also a threat during the Red Scare — both to itself, and more importantly, to innocent people.
Far-left politics have been framed as such a global contagion that the “radical left” is still evoked today as a tool to incite fear or express disapproval for progressive initiatives. Even decades after the Red Scare’s mass hysteria dwindled, adversaries of revolutionary politics rarely understand what exactly they are condemning. Any perspective that suggests altering the undeniable shortcomings of capitalism via structural change is often quickly shot down. Bids for things like labor unions, shared resources and community aid are haphazardly framed as synonymous with authoritarian power through inaccurate associations with Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union — as if their goals aren’t entirely incompatible with one another.
The goal for many modern thinkers working through the ins and outs of leftist politics is understanding the history, philosophy, misconceptions, failures and implications of revolutionary governance. These thinkers question the dominant political paradigm, envision the foundation of a more just society and assess the history of global politics at a greater depth. The skills and knowledge facilitated by these pursuits would be impossible to fully attain under McCarthy-esque restrictions.
Ideological suppression misconstrues history and obscures even factual perspectives. It disallows room for healthy analysis — which includes criticizing or identifying flaws of certain stances. Under this limiting model, ideological paralysis is the only reprieve from facing any condemnation, which promotes deficits in knowledge, stalls progress, increases susceptibility to propaganda and rewards willful ignorance. These conditions are not ideal for propagating the kind of tolerance, receptivity and critical thinking that is crucial to our society’s prosperity.
For this reason, immediately regarding any idea as entirely disreputable without taking the time to evaluate its foundations and possible consequences is the most dangerous thing that someone can do with it. Disagree with it, despise it and denounce it entirely — but take caution before declaring an idea as so dangerous it shouldn’t even be discussed.
It is possible to hate the things people say and defend to death their right to say it. These are the same rights that guarantee your own freedom of expression — and further, these are the same rights that protect your freedom of understanding. Thoroughly analyzing any perspective you come across, including your own, is the only way to truly nullify the threat of a dangerous idea.
So, the next time you’re about to scoff at the people visiting campus with debate prompts for students on their way to class — actually, go for it. You have just as much of a right to condemn them as they have to be here. Just make sure you understand why it seems so threatening to set your own worldview aside, open your mind to unexpected insight and listen to the ideas you’re scared of.
Casey Mendoza is a 2025-2026 Assistant Opinion Editor. He can be reached at caseym4@uci.edu.
Edited by Isabella Ehring and Mia Noergaard.