Oh, sorry, I thought you believed the article was written about Charlottesville due to its chronology, but instead you think that the article literally implies

Oh, sorry, I thought you believed the article was written about Charlottesville due to its chronology, but instead you think that the article literally implies support for Charlottesville through its content. Can you explain to us how an article that makes a case against 'speech codes' that hurt neurodiverse people within Universities relates to free-speech at a far-right rally? * * * Edit: > That agreement will then, in turn be used to defend > things that are definitely not scientific masterpieces. Okay, I partially agree with you here. I've actually written a comment about this very recently [0]. This doesn't mean I'm against free speech. I believe that in many cases 'speech codes' have created environments which have lowered the level of discourse and radicalised people. But 'absolute free-speech' creates terrible spaces. What I want is for people to look at the consequences of the environments they help to create, and make choices depending on the outcomes they wish to achieve rather than merely being ideological about principles like 'free speech'. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15037749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15037749