> When the right wanted to ban media, a quire reasonable counter argument was "you don't have to buy, or read, the things you don't like". I don't actually thi

> When the right wanted to ban media, a quire reasonable counter argument was "you don't have to buy, or read, the things you don't like". I don't actually think the situation is all that different. I think it's still a perfectly reasonable counter-argument, which the other side will ignore, just as it did back then! This is all a proxy for tribal, cultural warfare. It's never been about the books themselves, their potential for hurting people or anything else. It's about destroying the other side. The books and their authors and their readers are a means to to that end. There's no room for compromise under that framework. It's a ridiculous and unproductive situation.