I think we are talking past each other. No one is saying that we shouldn't allow people to question why things are right and wrong, or that we shouldn't explain

I think we are talking past each other. No one is saying that we shouldn't allow people to question why things are right and wrong, or that we shouldn't explain our reasoning. Let me repeat the original comment to which I responded: > The problem is - who decides what should be fringe and ostracized? At different times in history, women's rights, abolition, etc were all heretical ideas that the majority would want to squish if they could. Rephrased: "since there is no omniscient referee to determine which ideas are good and which are bad, we should treat all ideas as equal." But of course, not all ideas are equal. You and I have acknowledged as much in this conversation. One of the points of society — indeed, the very thing that lets us progress — is figuring out which ones are good and which are bad. And in the case of racial equality, genocide, etc, we've put in the work and mostly agreed that these are bad things. The reason I reach for the teaching example is that it basically forces that choice. We either design the lesson so they learn that racial equality is good, and why it's good… or we throw our hands up and say "who decides that segregation should be a fringe view?" and teach them Jim Crow propaganda and race science as well. And of course, despite all that, there will always be Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt guy. But if he wants to eat in our restaurants, or socialize on our networks, or host websites on our servers, we should have no qualms telling him to take it off first.