There is not a consensus on prevention of speech, hateful or otherwise. There is the attempt to claim a consensus, but only so as to move on to creation of enfo

There is not a consensus on prevention of speech, hateful or otherwise. There is the attempt to claim a consensus, but only so as to move on to creation of enforcing bodies. I think we should enforce laws against behavior, not speech or thought. Political Correctness attempts to police speech and thought. This is dangerous, especially when armored with the force of government. You get tribunals in Canada charging people with hate crimes for writing books. Government is people with power. It always, always comes down to flawed individuals. It is flawed individuals applying it to flawed individuals. Should there be outcries against racism and sexism? Yes. Should there be laws that say if you act based on bias (denying jobs, housing... etc.) that you face consequences of punishment under the law? Yes. Should there be someone allowed to decide that your facial expression requires that you be subjected to 2 hours (or 2 weeks) of "education"? No. We can come to an agreement on what we as a society consider to be "nice" and "polite". That's part of how societies work. We must never enforce being "nice" (to Stewart Lee's take) because it is an ever-changing, subjective thing. How will we come to value the next societal advancement if we aren't allowed to hold and discuss opinions that differ? This freedom is too important to a civilization dedicated to freedom to allow it to be sacrificed on the altar of propriety, anyone's propriety.