How can we move forward without debate? In a sane world it is logical that there will be different opinions. To prevent the expression of those opinions undermines progress. The censorship that was perpetrated on those who disagreed with the government policies during COVID was catastrophic to humanity. We cannot allow that to happen again. The dissident voices much be heard. God help us if SCOTUS rules against upholding the 1st amendment for free speech.
"Why not debate critics directly? Both Offit and the interviewer say that they will not do this under any circumstances. They think it gives the critic too much credibility and that listeners cannot tell the difference between their truths and the liars they oppose." This is the reasoning of the safe spacer, who learned about "toxic speech" in college and also learned that people are so impressionable that exposure equals instant acceptance, conversion, even radicalization. "MSNBC pundit Rachel Maddow said it is “irresponsible” of news organizations to carry former President Trump’s remarks when they know he is going to make false statements." - The Hill 3/6/24. A speaker allowed on campus or, heaven forbid, exposure to a debate that entertained the possibility an alternative view MIGHT be correct, would be the penetration of a foreign object smeared with a toxic pathogen. These virgin queens thus must demand censorship to protect themselves from violation. And we all must don identical intellectual chastity belts to keep "society" from being despoiled. The argument is devilishly self-consistent and unassailable. It's check mate, folks.
How can we move forward without debate? In a sane world it is logical that there will be different opinions. To prevent the expression of those opinions undermines progress. The censorship that was perpetrated on those who disagreed with the government policies during COVID was catastrophic to humanity. We cannot allow that to happen again. The dissident voices much be heard. God help us if SCOTUS rules against upholding the 1st amendment for free speech.
"Why not debate critics directly? Both Offit and the interviewer say that they will not do this under any circumstances. They think it gives the critic too much credibility and that listeners cannot tell the difference between their truths and the liars they oppose." This is the reasoning of the safe spacer, who learned about "toxic speech" in college and also learned that people are so impressionable that exposure equals instant acceptance, conversion, even radicalization. "MSNBC pundit Rachel Maddow said it is “irresponsible” of news organizations to carry former President Trump’s remarks when they know he is going to make false statements." - The Hill 3/6/24. A speaker allowed on campus or, heaven forbid, exposure to a debate that entertained the possibility an alternative view MIGHT be correct, would be the penetration of a foreign object smeared with a toxic pathogen. These virgin queens thus must demand censorship to protect themselves from violation. And we all must don identical intellectual chastity belts to keep "society" from being despoiled. The argument is devilishly self-consistent and unassailable. It's check mate, folks.