> but never the reaction to the offense. I guess being offended is too offensive?

Exactly. It seems tortuous to me that this "debate" is even happening. "Now hold on a second, I don't agree with what this guy is saying about wanting trans people dragged away by cops and beaten, but it's important we have him here on our stage to say it!" Then they toss a bone, "remember, that's what let you people spread your silly communist musings around back in the 50s!" Sure, rarely on stage though. Usually in some dark corner of the university's "Free speech zone." Usually with a line of armored cops facing them down.

These institutions seem inherently conservative to me. Look :

> A commitment to free expression includes hearing and hosting speakers, including those whose views or opinions may not be shared by many members of the MIT community and may be harmful to some. This commitment includes the freedom to criticize and peacefully protest speakers to whom one may object, but it does not extend to suppressing or restricting such speakers from expressing their views. Debate and deliberation of controversial ideas are hallmarks of the Institute’s educational and research missions and are essential to the pursuit of truth, knowledge, equity, and justice.

Leftists don't want Matt Walsh giving a talk at a university because he's going to do what he always does and in some form call for violence against LGBT people. They protest. "That's not speech!" says the university, finger-wagging liberals, and smirking reactionaries happy for any opportunity to throttle leftist speech, "speech is how we define it, how we have always defined it." The conservativism, the reaction, is right there, staring us in the face every single time. The reaction to Kaepernick kneeling was the most blatant example of this selective enforcement of "time and place."

"Just debate them in the marketplace of ideals! Don't protest at the event, don't speak up when they're talking!" Yeah, sure, the university gave Steven Crowder a microphone, and will enforce his "right" to speech with the campus police if necessary. We will "speak" on their terms. So... when is that? When will we get to debate Steven Crowder in a public space? When the police escort him through protest lines onto the stage? When they do it afterwards? We have to depend on his good grace to do a Q/A session?

These people have the advantage of having abandoned civility, but they still get to weaponize civility to make sure their voice is heard without interruption, without immediate critique or debate, without consequence.

The protest, called "suppression," is the only option left. America's broken overton window means the university and the media at large somehow see this as a more violent suppression of free speech than a conservative asking whether a gay person should have human rights through a microphone on stage. Leftists are forced to lash out at the false definition of civility that lets people say "I dunno, trans people are icky, let's just not let them pee in public," but doesn't let people say "that's fucked up, where are trans people supposed to pee then?" Because these counter points don't get platformed nearly as much, either because of conservatism or, cynically, because what they have to say is less surprising / offensive / infuriating and thus they won't generate as much attention / clicks / eyeballs / outrage / engagement.

Civility, tolerance, should not be a suicide pact.