Your entire argument is based off cherry picking historic examples where the majority is wrong. >My point is that once again, you are now in a position where a

Your entire argument is based off cherry picking historic examples where the majority is wrong. >My point is that once again, you are now in a position where a minority of people believe that some ideas are truly evil and not worthy of any merit. You are sympathetic towards these ideas, or unsympathetic to their opponents (just as many who disapproved of Jim Crow laws but thought MLK was too radical)- so I hope you can at least realize that statistically speaking, you're in a position where it has traditionally been very difficult for people to determine right from wrong. So what are you suggesting here? Should we automatically crown the minority's opinion as the "right one" because they challenge the status quo being accepted by society? Yes, you have examples of Jim Crow and MLK, does that mean every time someone writes off an idea his argument is automatically as valid as MLK's and his opponents are automatically the KKK? > so I hope you can at least realize that statistically speaking, you're in a position where it has traditionally been very difficult for people to determine right from wrong. My point is that it doesn't matter whether we can determine right from wrong. I can't do that easily, and neither can you. So let all sides debate and engage with each other and make history judge the outcome. You do not get to jump through this step. Remember, Fascism and Communism rose to power by being the "progressive minority" at first and claimed morale high ground against their oppositions and shut down all forms of public debate soon after. If you think the majority is bad at judging good from bad, what makes you think the minority is better in this case? Dr. King's speech started with "I have a dream", not "I'm right and you are wrong and is not even worth my time to debate". Unfortunately, Social Justice Warriors today are no MLK.