As certain speech is outlawed, certain thoughts follow, and slowly but surely we make our way towards Thought-Crime becoming an accepted social standard or concept. If people aren’t free to explore or to engage certain ideologies directly, especially for the sake of disputing them, we risk allowing their foundational logical premises leaking out into wider society under new names, contexts and covers.
People with divisive beliefs often interpret other people’s emotional reactions to their claims as some kind of proof that they must be right; the other person just couldn’t handle or wasn’t equipped to deal with such powerful truths, or something like that. When simple discussion with this type of person is outlawed and seen as some kind of support or advocacy, what we do in its place can inadvertently strengthen those beliefs within the believer. If nothing else, it only makes it more difficult for the believer to learn their way out of whatever divisive ideology has them in its grip.
It also leaves others ill-equipped to handle confrontations with these people, as they lack the insight necessary to engage them and to dispute them effectively. This is a crucial point. They won’t be ready for the positions and arguments that will be thrown at them, and they definitely won’t know how to protect themselves if they start emulating this logic in their own minds.
