> suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous? Because then these bad ideas fester in dark p

> suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous? Because then these bad ideas fester in dark places and emerge as an entrenched ideology that is more difficult or impossible to respond to before they have resulted in adverse outcomes. > I may agree that most censorship is wrong but it does work. It worked for centuries to help maintain systems of inequality. It seems you’ve answered your own question then. Censorship is bad because it sustains systems of inequality. > It worked for centuries to maintain familial control and enforce sexual monoculture in many countries. Information control works so well, it prevents people from even understanding themselves or what they really want in the face of ideologically imposed values. You are attributing effects to censorship when material circumstances and ideology contributed in large amounts. Its much easier to destroy ideas by burning books when all the books are manufactured by skilled craftsman using their hands. > We are steeped in a culture of Hollywood telling us what the lessons of history are about. One of the off repeated "hopeful" messages we are fed is that you can't kill an idea but my reading of history has led me to the other conclusion entirely. That controlling the conversation, its constraints and determining the status quo are profoundly powerful tools. You can’t kill an idea but you can delay it or make people too terrified to spread it openly.