> Society can absolutely decide not every point of view is worth debating. We could have decided that three hundred years ago too, in which case the divine rig

> Society can absolutely decide not every point of view is worth debating. We could have decided that three hundred years ago too, in which case the divine right of kings would still be a thing. EDIT: A lot of people seem to think that the divine right of kings would not have been a thing worth strongly defending back in the early 1700s - and certainly far more than they would have defended the rights of people in the west indies or far east to not be "raped and killed". Do you have any argument to back this up? Would bumping things to five hundred years change that? If banning discussion of things outside the overton window wouldn't have had results you'd like then, why would it do so now? There might be reasons! But I haven't heard people bringing them up.