Is there still room for debate?
It started with not allowing anyone to agree or even argue that vaccines cause autism because people can die if they believe they shouldn’t get vaccines. Then, we couldn’t argue that the Holocaust didn’t happen because that could give rise to a new Holocaust. Then, we couldn’t argue that Black crime was self-inflicted. Now, we can’t argue that police brutality is overstated.<p>In each case, I tend to agree with the mainstream opinion. However, I only got to be that way because I heard both sides’ arguments and came to my own conclusion.<p>There is an idea that these ideas are inherently dangerous and that holding these ideas could lead to lives lost. While that may be true, entirely censoring one side of a discussion makes everyone feel like evidence is being withheld and suspicion only grows. Even worse, ruining lives by doxxing is what was sought to prevent by stifling discussion in the first place.<p>The only way forward is to accept that these ideas must be openly discussed, no matter how dangerous the opposing conclusion may be. If the truth really is self-evident, then there is nothing to fear, provided all sides are afforded ample opportunity to make their case. Otherwise, perhaps those who seek to censor are not, themselves, as correct and righteous as they might think.<p>Edit: Even the Amish let their kids roam free temporarily in Rumspringa so that they don’t feel like they’re missing the truth.