(I don't agree with the "hate speech" theory and am just trying to explain why someone might, in response to your question.) 1. Maybe there is a large populati

(I don't agree with the "hate speech" theory and am just trying to explain why someone might, in response to your question.) 1. Maybe there is a large population of "marginal" readers who are the intended target of the $topic advocacy, who don't quite believe it but could be convinced to believe it through evidence in favor of it and/or emotional appeals in favor of it. In that case effective advocacy for $topic aimed at them may convince them to adopt it. This doesn't work on you because you are far removed from the situation culturally or intellectually, so these particular appeals hold no particular interest or persuasive power for you. 2. Maybe there are lots of people who already believe $topic, but if they could become convinced that $topic is now socially stigmatized, they would stop believing in it over time or stop expressing their own support for it. Alternatively, maybe people show currently believe $topic are afraid to express their support but if expressions of support for it become common, they will start to believe it is socially normal or safe to express their support, and they will potentially start to do so themselves. The second theory is closely related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window in the sense that the people trying to suppress the speech either hope to move $topic out of the Overton window in some community, or hope to prevent others from moving $topic into the Overton window. I'll refrain from trying to argue against this here, but it seems like a very important controversy in the world today.