>If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous?
Because instead of treating the disease (terrible dehumanizing ideologies) it treats the symptom (them talking about it).
Instead of a fire, it creates a bomb.
>It worked for centuries to maintain familial control and enforce sexual monoculture in many countries. Information control works so well, it prevents people from even understanding themselves or what they really want in the face of ideologically imposed values.
It worked before the Internet.
>controlling the conversation, its constraints and determining the status quo are profoundly powerful tools.
In the short term. Determining the status quo isn't up to censors. It's up to society. And while censors have some power, they're not omniscient, so they always get circumvented eventually.
Because instead of treating the disease (terrible dehumanizing ideologies) it treats the symptom (them talking about it).
Instead of a fire, it creates a bomb.
>It worked for centuries to maintain familial control and enforce sexual monoculture in many countries. Information control works so well, it prevents people from even understanding themselves or what they really want in the face of ideologically imposed values.
It worked before the Internet.
>controlling the conversation, its constraints and determining the status quo are profoundly powerful tools.
In the short term. Determining the status quo isn't up to censors. It's up to society. And while censors have some power, they're not omniscient, so they always get circumvented eventually.