<< Those attempting to stifle free speech on campuses by banning what they deem hate speech are using private institutional policies in the open market. Yes; t

<< Those attempting to stifle free speech on campuses by banning what they deem hate speech are using private institutional policies in the open market. Yes; the hate speech being defined as speech they hate. That is not a great standard, because I can assure you the definition will expand in directions you may not find acceptable. But it is an easy rallying flag and a good political tool. << The venn diagram between people that are "self censoring" by attempting to boycott say Dave Chapelle, and the people that are attempting (and succeeding) in banning "Critical race theory" has no overlap. This is not what I meant by self-censoring. Dave Chapelle episode is something else altogether and we can discuss it if you want, but I am not sure if this is the line of argumentation you want to take. What I referred to was a clear departure of university ethos to present kids with various POVs, expand their mind and have a healthy discussion. Instead, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction recognized by some as 'stifling'[1]. <<It's purely an emotional reaction based on how the dominant culture feels about being asked to confront it's past. I am honestly not sure what you are talking about here. What culture are you referring to? What past needs to be confronted? US openly committed genocide on Indians - it is on the books last time I checked. US imported slaves and it was a while before they were even freed on paper? Do you see anyone denying that? What exactly needs to be confronted? Lynchings? Segregation? What? None of this is hidden. If anything, you have a prime time now to call anything racist. You can call cereal racist and a clear and present indicator of white supremacy and CNN will give you a platform to spread that opinion further. Some of us just can't help but chuckle, because the backlash you are referring to is created by this weird fixation with race exemplified by 'everything is racist' movement. <<Every other Western/developed country besides the United States believes this. Does it mean it is the correct stance ( is majority automatically right on any given issue )? <<Every country from Germany to the UK to Canada accepts some limitations on the exercise of free speech in the interest of resisting hatred. Yes and there are historical reasons for those you listed. US, on the other hand, was founded based on a firm rejections of those limitations as enshrined in that foundational document called a constitution. <<the very term is completely mis-defined Please define it then. <<The very acknowledgement of racist feelings and histories is uncomfortable. And the dominant white judeo-christian protestant conservative culture in the US does not deal well with self-reflection or discomfort, and instead lashes outward. I find this the most interesting line of the entire post. Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I do not see discomfort. Have you ever marveled at the beauty of the pyramids? I have about the same discomfort about pyramids as I do about US history. [1]https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15277443/north-korean-defector-yeonmi-park-criticized-us-university/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15277443/north-korean-defector...