The narrative that you are pushing is that the left and the right have co-equal messages.
LD Prindle

You are mistaken. I have made no comparison of the messages. Allowing a message to be demonstrated in no way equates to support for that message. I do not in any way agree with the anti-white message of the BLM, but I fully support allowing them to make that message public without assault.

I have said that one side is using violence to silence the message from the other side.

I have said that that other side has in the past been allowed to say their message and do so without violence, and we have suffered no harm from hearing that message; in the event, we have simply dismissed the message as worthless. Afterwards, not in advance, and peacefully, not violently; that is the important difference.

What is different now is that violence has been chosen to shut the message down, same as has happened on campuses and other demonstrations in other places. Violent people have been bussed in from outside precisely to assault the demonstrators. One side simply declares the other side’s positions to be illegitimate, even morally reprehensible (by their standards), and that justifies banning those messages.

Don’t you even see how wrong that is? Perhaps if the same were done to shut down the Left’s speech, you might not embrace the tactic.

Speech does our society no harm. Violent suppression does harm our society.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.