But can’t you see how that contradicts with “[i]t should be obvious [the concepts have not been eliminated]. The only way to eliminate an ideology to any extent is to grab it by the horns and wrestle it to the ground. Sweeping it under the rug or pushing it to the side accomplishes nothing, and it infringes on people’s rights.”
Making it illegal to act on a discriminatory attitude doesn’t resolve the discriminatory attitude, it just makes it harder to tell who’s hateful and who isn’t, while encouraging metastization of the hateful attitude — the same problematic entanglement as limiting hate speech.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m just pointing out that this position on free speech implies a conflict with a position in support of anti-discrimination laws. It’s a weird, frustrating contradiction I’ve seen many times that most people generally prefer to ignore.