I'm really not convinced that someone labeling "deadnaming" or "microaggression" carries the same consequences as "a suggestion from your boss". I think it's a

I'm really not convinced that someone labeling "deadnaming" or "microaggression" carries the same consequences as "a suggestion from your boss". I think it's actually bizarre to want to silence people from saying the phrase "deadnaming" or "microaggression" (your examples) even if you feel criticized. It feels bad faith when it reaches the point of "people who say A should be protected by the govt" and "people who say B should be constrained by the govt". Its extremely on the nose for the critique of modern conservative policy being "rules for thee but not for me". There's just not a lot behind "I should be able to say anything but people shouldn't be allowed to have their opinion about what I said". Changing from those examples to other people feeling microaggressions from race based criticism is an interesting tact, but I'll bite. I like the idea of recognizing what kind of harm can be done but it falls flat to me when the argument 1. Ignores anyone else's similar experience and 2. suggests the answer is to not let people learn history. I don't see myself being convinced to ban knowing about the systems of slavery and other racial prejudice in the US just because I dont want to acknowledge their consequences. Even if the ONLY people harmed were the white people you listed I probably wouldn't try to ban speech and knowledge (and they are certainly not the only people who have harm done to them over racial topics). That would make me feel like I'm not appreciating the country we have been given and I'd feel like am not properly taking care of it. We've taken quite a meandering path here so I'll bring it back to the beginning. I agree with you that we shouldn't try to ban speech, but probably not for the same reasons.