I can imagine where you're coming from and doubt we'd have much of a fruitful conversation, so I'll focus only on your first part: > Every comment supporting c

I can imagine where you're coming from and doubt we'd have much of a fruitful conversation, so I'll focus only on your first part: > Every comment supporting censorship here is just restating the pro-authoritarian censorship rhetoric. Not a single comment on Cahill's points or research. Let me repeat: I'm indeed not familiar with Cahill's work beyond this article. The article seems mostly fine, but appears to used by motivated actors to push an agenda. I advocate for people resisting against the latter part. We should generally, within reason, try to be aware what effects we have on society and should try to only change it for the better. Our free society requires a high degree of cooperation and will have a hard time to continue to exist without stuff like that. And would probably be replaced by something more authoritarian. Thus I find you calling this "pro-authoritarian censorship rhetoric" kinda funny. Are you call it "pro-authoritarian cleanliness rhetoric" when Dr. Peterson advocates for people to "clean their room"? Or is this just a derogatory reaction against something you disagree with?