I think the most important thing to achieve is to moderate leftist speech like right speech.
As long as one side gets to decide what the other can say, you are not impartial here, and can't fairly moderate.
As long as one side gets to decide what the other can say, you are not impartial here, and can't fairly moderate.
no one should be moderated
Paraphrasing a Colbert quote (“reality has a well-known liberal bias”) is oddly apropos, given the thread topic.
The Colbert Report actively sought out guests/topics with unorthodox views and used speech (in the form of satire) to indirectly mock or support. And it worked as both a moderator of extremism as well as a way to humorously expose issues embedded in society.
And while it was certainly a “liberal” oriented show, they went out of their way to showcase conservatives with interesting ideas (eg: Ron Paul, who was essentially blackballed from other media at the time) and touched on topics like the Snowden leaks that would be absolutely verboten on Colbert’s sad and pathetic Late Night Show.
“I am very moral therefore I am the arbiter of speech” is what the left used to rail against. “Canceling” used to mean “Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and exposed the show for the society-destroying rage bait it always was”. What happened? (Yes Trump, but it has to be more than just him)
Also, you'd have to be pretty blind to history, to argue that "left wing ideology holds up better to academic scrutiny"...whatever that means exactly.
I don't know where you got the idea I said that. Universities examine all ideologies.