For example: When universities no longer want you to know controversial ideas, you have a problem:
— In the continuing uproar, of course, The Economist tries to come down on both sides at once, on all four feet. The arguments, we are told, are “complex and debatable.” Also that “many trans activists think that any disagreement is tantamount to hate speech and try to suppress it.Perhaps The Economist might wish to consider whether reality matters. If reality matters, the right to talk about it freely is not so hard a road to walk as many must suppose.
— Fighting back against Cancel Culture with Douglas Murray: “All ages have their orthodoxies. And if writers, artists, thinkers and comedians do not occasionally tread on them, then they are not doing their jobs. Meanwhile human nature remains what it is. And just as some children will always pull the wings off flies and fry small ants with their toy magnifying glasses, so a certain number of adult inadequates will find meaning in their lives by sniffing around the seats in the public square until they find an aroma they can claim offends them.”
We may need to start asking ourselves some hard questions. Do educational institutions we support sponsor crackdowns on independent thinking? It may be time to find out.
— Why did the publishing industry go to war against books? Readers need to know how things have changed.
“For various reasons, traditional publishers today are trying to dump controversial books instead of profiting from their sale. The publisher’s great cry against the government, has always been, since the printing press was invented, that people wanted to read those books. Whether it was the Bible or something decidedly unbiblical. That was one of the ways freedom of thought got started.
“But today, many publishers not only meekly submit to whatever bureaucrats and lobbyists want but bally-hoo in favor of it, without reserve. Journalist Rod Dreher spells that out, writing on behalf of another threatened book, Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage… ”