It is inevitable that to progress ideas need to be built upon ideas. In order to make progress in any area of science or technology, you can't investigate every

It is inevitable that to progress ideas need to be built upon ideas. In order to make progress in any area of science or technology, you can't investigate every axiom in the chain. You need to implicitly trust that a lot of those ideas are true, especially if there is an academic consensus. In my experience the people who mostly have their views shut down are people who derail high level (conversations about ideas built upon lots of levels of ideas) with questions about lower levels of ideas. One (strange) example may be; in a debate regarding the best way to colonise Mars, a third person questioning the existence of space. It's not helpful to question the existence of something that has been proven over and over again. It's wasting everyone's time. But it makes a good hot take for the media to represent like it is somehow an equal and opposite opinion. So the third person, who questions the basics that scientists have been agreeing on for a long time, uses cheap arguments to derail the conversation. They get rewarded for it with media time, and people that want to confirm their anti-establishment biases. This is the person that is most likely to get their views censored; and then the most likely to complain that wokeism is going too far and censoring debate. I apologise for the Australian slang but-- Mate, nobody is censoring real debate; they're censoring shit-takes.