[DanFeldman]

I can definitely relate first hand to this as a current college student. To borrow some jargon, I absolutely feel 'unsafe' discussing many of these topics in public, and I don't hold controversial or polarizing opinions. Some people quickly label others as racist or misogynistic for presenting contrary viewpoints. Granted, those who seek to shut out debate by this sort of censorship are probably not worth debating, it's worrying that this rhetorical strategy is becoming mainstream.

Relevant smbc: http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2164

[eigenvector]

The condemnatory value of the "isms" (racism, sexism, etc.) seems greatly diminished these days. Once upon a time, if you hurled "racist" at someone it was because, y'know, they actively hated and oppressed people of other races. If someone asked me if I'd hire a racist I could comfortably say no without being afraid it was a loaded question meant to see if I'd ostracize some white guy who retweeted a rap lyric 3 years ago.

Nowadays it seems to mean something more along the lines of "you said something at least tangentially related to race that I didn't quite agree with".

[joeclark77]

You used to hear American liberals saying things like "I disagree with your position, but I would defend to the death your right to express it." It was part of the creed that they thought defined them as "progressive". Funny, you don't hear that much any more.

[nailer]

The authoritarian left around 2010 adopted the language of the authoritarian right of the early 2000s.

'If you disagree with me, you hate America' became 'if you disagree with me you hate women'.

[Frondo]

The thing is, I don't think there are all that many liberals out there who want to use the force of law to prevent objectionable speech;

They do want to use the force of law to prevent businesses from discriminating among their customers, though, which is an important distinction.

Hate black people? Sure, put up a klan poster, but you've still gotta serve 'em a drink.

[icebraining]

Dunno about many, but there are clearly some, and often in positions of power. Popehat has often unsettling stories about "censorious dipshits", from any political position: https://www.popehat.com/

[joeclark77]

You're sort of proving my point. "We aren't using the force of law to silence you... yet" is not the same sentiment as "We defend to the death your right to express your opinion." Meanwhile, on the real free-speech issues of the day, liberals are furious about Citizens United and are jubilant about Net Neutrality.

[proveanegative]

On the other hand, I wonder if this opens the door for more radical opinions on the opposite side. If those who deviate from the socially enforced norm expect (whether correctly or not) for their views to be condemned anyway the marginal social cost of holding more extreme views is lessened.

[venomsnake]

If I am gonna be labeled uneducated, fatphobic, racist, misogynistic, overpriviled white mansplainer, supporting rape culture why bother with discussion instead of just saying the most inflammatory thing possible hoping to give the other side a stroke ...

Disclaimer - I love teasing both ultra conservatives, ultra religious, and radical feminists to blood ... I do not discriminate against any group - if you are fanatic, you deserve to be mocked and provoked.

[totony]

This is exactly what I do, I'm surprised I'm not alone.

I respond to intelligence with intelligence and to stupidity with stupidity.