Thanks for the reply.

> I don't even know why you did that, that's just a poor strawman at best.

I was trying to point out the flaw in the form of your argument, rather than its substance. Sorry if that didn't come through.

> Freedom of Speech goes in both ways. If someone or some group is publicly attacked, they have the right to defend themselves as well.

That is true, if both groups have access to the same sized soapbox. But, in many countries, there are some major media outlets who manage to get ratings by telling the majority that most of their existing problems are down to some minority or other (sucking up welfare, or "stealing" jobs), and that the people they should fear in terms of being assaulted, mugged, raped, killed, hit by an uninsured driver, etc... in the future are from the same minority. Meanwhile, the minority doesn't have much representation in mainstream media, much less control any of it. Further, while non-discriminatory majority-run media certainly exist, they tend not to rebut even a significant subset of the unsubstantiated biased fear-mongering dreck out there.

> Because you think not talking about what people really think without daring to say it is good for our culture ?

No, because a lot of what people "really think" about many minority groups is not based on facts, but on unsubstantiated misinformation spread by other bigots. I have relatives who are convinced that all the members of one minority group are basically scum. They simultaneously think they're all incredibly lazy, while also reviling them for stealing jobs by willing to work 14 hours/day for less than a living wage. They didn't come to these opinions through personal experience with this minority group or their culture. They certainly don't have any friends from this group, and it's highly unlikely they even know any of them in passing. Their opinions of this group are entirely based on what other people like them said when those people were "talking about what they really thought". And they spread the lies and misinformation further, to even more people who wouldn't have formed their own opinion either way without them.

I think that that's bad for our culture.

> basically you remove the right from People from even having opinions about other people.

I don't want that. I want to stop people forming prejudicial opinions of individuals, based purely on those individuals membership of a discriminated-against minority group. If you think Joseph is a thief because you lent him money, but he later denied that you did and refuses to pay you back, that's fine. But if you think he must be a thief because he's a member of [ethnic minority], and they're all theives, then no, that's not on and you're an asshole.

> I never said ["we never used to do it that way"], thanks for the additional Strawman,

Re-read your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th sentences. It might not be how you intended it, but in 5 out of the 7 sentences you originally wrote, as I read them, your main argument seems to be that 20 years ago we never had a problem with that sort of speech, so why should we now?

> You cannot say shit about the Church, about your Lord, about the King, about the Nobility, etc...

There is an important difference here, in that the focus on "censorship" (for want of a better word) is the intent to use it to protect the weak from the strong. We're now fine with "punching up", subjecting those with power to scrutiny, and dissent. In fact, we try to insist on it. We don't always do very well, because those with power have, well, a lot of power with which to protect and veil themselves. But that discussion is over, and we won it.

The fight now is to stop people "punching down", from shitting on the little guy, the guy with no friends, the guy without a voice. Heck, that's the basis of most of our judicial systems, to protect the weak from the bullies, and the naive from the unscrupulous.

> We are now recreating new systems of censorship with the pretext "we should all be nice to each other", and burning new people at the stake (at least burning their reputation and ruining their lives) by pointing out their "thought crime".

I agree, it sucks. Censorship is bad and causes a whole raft of problems. But I'm not convinced that in some cases it's not worse than the systemic discrimination we already have. If you can come up with another way to end that, to get people to let go of their irrational fear and hatred, or just find a way to get them to not pass it on to their kids so the next generation isn't quite so fucked - without making some thoughts taboo to express - I'd be over the moon.