I'm sorry, but, what? Critique is not censorship. The spread and evolution of ideas necessitates a dialog--critique, further reform of your idea, more critique,

I'm sorry, but, what? Critique is not censorship. The spread and evolution of ideas necessitates a dialog--critique, further reform of your idea, more critique, etc. etc. etc. This is how pretty much all intellectual expression works. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum, they exist among all other ideas and opinions and among data and personal anecdote and so on. Without critique, ideas fail. Edit: If you think someone is wrong, you should tell them (if you can articulate it in a well-reasoned, well-supported manner). Controversial ideas especially shouldn't get a free pass from critique just because they're on the dubside of mainstream thought. How does that even make any sense? Mainstream ideas are, by definition, more popular. While this popularity could lead to less (direct) critique, it still leads to more people thinking about the idea, refining it, etc. There's more brainpower behind a mainstream idea than behind a controversial one. All ideas are deserving of critique, but the ones that have been built with less human hours should probably be looked at a little more closely.