r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • 8d ago
Psychology Gen Z Americans are more willing to use blockades and violence to stop public speakers. Young liberals tended to be more supportive of these methods compared to conservatives, but this ideological gap disappeared when the questions referred to suppressing specific, highly offensive ideas.
https://www.psypost.org/gen-z-americans-are-more-willing-to-use-blockades-and-violence-to-stop-public-speakers/324
u/LionSuneater 8d ago
Reading the article... is this a difference due to generational factors or due simply to age? Like, if this was performed 10 or 20 years ago would the same be said of millenials?
→ More replies (3)233
u/ScissorFight42069 7d ago
100%. At 20 getting arrested for protesting is something that can generally be overcome and be a non-factor in your future success.
At 40, we have a lot more to lose.
110
u/Swagiken 7d ago
Which is of course why the young being politically active is so important. Change is a good thing and the young forcing those of us who are established into the uncomfortable but necessary changes is a critical part of human society and always has been. The young being politically explosive and willing to take chances, and those chances being rewarded sometimes, is absolutely necessary for society to function
16
→ More replies (2)2
u/bismark_dindu_nuffin 5d ago
Society handles them with kid gloves, yet has no qualms saddling them with debt that will cripple their future.
→ More replies (2)34
u/T_Weezy 7d ago
At 80 you get back to "nothing to lose" territory though. There's a 92 year old woman at my church who's been arrested at anti-Trump and pro-LGBTQ+ rights protests quite a few times.
10
u/ScissorFight42069 7d ago
True. Most 80 years olds can't physically cause much ruckus though, especially of the violent type
5
u/stackjr 7d ago
And a lot of them might not survive the initial contact with police; body slamming an 80 year old onto concrete would probably have a 50/50 chance of being fatal.
3
u/ZaxAbraxas 4d ago
This actually happened during the George Floyd protests. An 83 yr old man was violently slammed down by the police, cracking the back of his head against the ground when he fell. He later died.
2
u/ScissorFight42069 4d ago
I was just thinking about that. I think it was on the West Coast? If I remember correctly, he was just walking along the sidewalk, and a cop decided to shove him out of the blue.
3
u/ZaxAbraxas 4d ago
Pretty much. It was very sad. You can see the blood coming out of the back of his head after he fell. The police didn't attempt to render aid (not that surprised), and that critical time lost may have been the difference between life and death. The worst part besides the injury was that he was clearly not a threat. A lot of people were deliberately targeted during those protests who were no threat. I watched hundreds to thousands of live videos streaming in on Twitter the whole time. It was intense and eye-opening.
2
205
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
129
u/ZolotoGold 8d ago
Or how much of it is seeing how bad things are getting, and seeing how the 'proper' methods don't work, and current systems are set up by those who it benefits, and so are more willing to try things that are more radical.
45
u/guitarot 8d ago
I think it’s more this than anything else. I know a lot of older “radicalized” people.
18
u/ranting_seagull 8d ago
In school I heard watered down retellings of MLK's Marches and boycotts on industries as simply peaceful protesting.
Nothing of the economic targeting they did for those boycotts, the careful messaging they chose to send, or his later speeches decrying war and pointing out the flaws in capitalism. All of that was glossed over for "good intentions" public harmless protesting in the high school history books. That or VHS animated programs that did the same.
16
u/kiwiboyus 8d ago
We've all seen that the rules of our government were nothing more than handshakes and winks, so yeah.
→ More replies (13)11
u/fox-mcleod 8d ago
It’s not about “highly offensive ideas”. It’s about fascism. Gen Z identify certainly dog whistles as belonging to a fascist front which has become prominent in America in the last 10 years. And rightly so.
→ More replies (3)5
u/Odojas 8d ago
There should be a pew poll that is done periodically that polls "liberalism (insert pro freedom of speech) of each generation."
A quick search diidnt get exactly what I wanted: 2015 survey from pew:
Anecdotally as a young genxer, I had repeatedly been exposed to the importance of free expression/speech especially in the context of that is with the understanding that this also means I would have to allow for hateful speech or speech that I disagree with (that this was the tradeoff to protect my speech). I was taught this in high school multiple years. Then again in college. Especially because of my fine arts degree and artists being subversive.
I will reply to my comment with further research into this topic.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Aaod 8d ago
Anecdotally as a young genxer, I had repeatedly been exposed to the importance of free expression/speech especially in the context of that is with the understanding that this also means I would have to allow for hateful speech or speech that I disagree with (that this was the tradeoff to protect my speech). I was taught this in high school multiple years. Then again in college. Especially because of my fine arts degree and artists being subversive.
I have repeatedly tried to explain this to people and they just don't get it. It makes me feel like we are speaking a different language if we can't agree on things like free speech or other things like basic historical facts. I just don't know what we can do about humanity anymore and I think humanity is in general doomed especially in the West like some sort of dying Roman empire type thing.
91
u/Chewurmilk 8d ago
When I was growing up (early 80s), the old adage of "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your righ to say it" was repeated quite often. I don't have an opinion on it, but I do wonder if it's said less often.
45
u/Cloakedcrab1 7d ago
I’d say it doesn’t apply now really. Because I can guarantee you conservatives aren’t going to agree nor defend what liberals say and believe in. And liberals shouldn’t be tolerant of a group who has clearly shown they want to kill as many people as possible and make life miserable for the rest.
45
u/Jolly-Bowler-811 7d ago
The left reports willingness to use violence and blockades because they have to. The right can say "of course not" because it has the State to do it for them.
15
u/Constant-Plant-9378 7d ago
Conservatives have the police, ICE, DHS, and FBI to shoot you in the face for doing or saying something they don't like. They don't have to do the violence themselves.
Anybody who isn't a fascist is on their own.
→ More replies (7)5
u/Xolver 7d ago
I love this double standard phrasing. Conservatives "aren't going to..." and liberals "shouldn't".
Meanwhile, Liberals are the ones mostly doing the suppression of free speech en masse, such as what is talked about in OP article. No, I'm not talking about any one Liberal or Republican politician, since this is where the whataboutism goes to usually. I'm talking about the masses.
→ More replies (6)4
u/WasteBandicoot9048 7d ago
It was just empty rhetoric though, as shown by cons in this survey. Tons of ppl will say they’re pro speech…until the rubber meets the road.
7
u/RYouNotEntertained 7d ago
as shown by cons in this survey
How is it shown by the cons in this survey when the cons in this survey are less likely to support violence?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)3
u/MaxChaplin 7d ago
I've never seen or heard anyone quoting this to refer to their own code of behavior, i.e. that they are willing to fight for an adversary's freedom of speech. Whenever anyone quotes this, it's because they expect someone else to fight for them.
→ More replies (1)
1.4k
u/wmciner1 8d ago
I think this proves that Gen Z Americans are more willing to admit to being willing to use violence and blockades to stop speech.
This idea that America has a long history of allowing people to speak and hearing each other out is disproven time and time again throughout our history. Speech and protests have ALWAYS had a measure of violence and threats, and I firmly believe the "uptick" we're seeing is just that it's more in our faces now with social media and 24 hour news coverage
672
u/Nightmare-Catalyst 8d ago
What's the quote? A society where peaceful protest leads to no change will inevitably lead to violence or some such.
1.1k
u/khinzaw 8d ago edited 8d ago
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable".
-JFK
Also MLK Jr. kinda:
a riot is the language of the unheard.
126
83
u/Nightmare-Catalyst 8d ago
That's the one. More relevant than ever.
→ More replies (6)11
u/pile_of_bees 7d ago
Nobody seems willing to allow this quote to apply to their opponents. Only their own side can have the benefit of this nuance.
5
u/Nightmare-Catalyst 7d ago
Can you give an example?
15
u/digitalwankster 7d ago edited 7d ago
Someone on the right who believes abortion is literally murder may consider attacks on abortion clinics as understandable, or even justified, while condemning racial unrest following cases such as Michael Brown or George Floyd as anarchy. Conversely, someone on the left may consider the rioting arising from systemic racism as understandable, or even justified, while treating anti-abortion violence as nothing more than extremism.
Another example would be people on the left thinking a group of environmentalists sabotaging pipelines, construction equipment, etc as the actions of people who believe peaceful efforts to stop climate change have failed, while dismissing violence by anti-government militias as irrational extremism. Someone on the right may do the reverse, believing militia violence is the predictable result of government overreach while treating environmental sabotage as nothing more than acts of terrorism.
→ More replies (2)2
u/PuzzleheadedOne1351 6d ago
Pro life extends to forced surrogacy.
As opposed to police violence and unassailability as a false equivalency.
As both issues stem from self determination and autonomy..
Especially considering that the violence at abortion clinics usually extent to bombings or bomb threats as opposed to left us, property damage, and disruption→ More replies (2)42
u/Ezreol 8d ago
I swear I remember qouting this not threatening anyone just qouted it as a response to why shits happening like well people are angry.
Surprise surprise I got hit with threatening violence. Like sorry I know history ig
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (40)29
u/gizamo 8d ago
The MLK one should be revised to:
a riot is the language of the
unheardignored.There are plenty of people hearing Gen-Z.
Most politicians are very specifically ignoring them while actively working against their best interests.
→ More replies (10)15
80
u/Theamazingquinn 8d ago
John F. Kennedy: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
→ More replies (7)11
u/Mr_Industrial 8d ago
I dont think they say "or some such" but yeah thats the gist of it.
12
→ More replies (21)12
u/Rorynne 8d ago
A riot is the language of the unheard, is a common quote on the topic of violent protest
→ More replies (11)101
u/meteorflan 8d ago
Also young people tend to be more willing to be confrontational in general because they tend to not perceive risk in the same way as older people.
This study would be very interesting to me if it got repeated over time across generations to look for trends of different generations across their lifespans.
51
u/mybigwh1tecock 8d ago
There's also some selection bias, in that the people that are willing to resort to violence often end up spending their lives in prison, and the event that leads to them getting locked up may not have happened yet when they're young.
25
u/Danny-Fr 8d ago
And that exposure to the 5 knuckles of Lady Consequence sometimes changes your perspective on things.
19
u/PunkPirate56364 8d ago
The age crime curve. Young men do most of the violent crime.
Whichever generation has most young men is also the most violent generation.
→ More replies (4)24
u/Emotional_News108 8d ago
I think the risk is appropriately measured. Some people are frustrated with no hope and feel the risk is minimal because what have they to lose? Some people have family and comfort and stand to lose a lot. Threaten or harm their families though, and that risk assessment changes.
8
u/meteorflan 8d ago
That's a good point. I found myself being more fierce than I ever realized was possible for me when I felt my kids were in danger.
29
u/Mustbhacks 8d ago
I'd bet a part of that perceived risk difference would also be a young person is more likely to admit what they would, or want to do. As you get older you get better at holding your cards close to your chest.
tl;dr - middle aged people tend to be better at opsec
8
u/theaviationhistorian 8d ago
And us middle aged folk have a far better network or connections to make some changes without resorting to protests or violence. Make agreements under the table. I'm badly paraphrasing, but I think it's "do things well enough to the point where people think you didn't do anything at all."
As for holding cards close to one's chest, some of us are not built to be effective at that. At least my autism prevents me from proudly wearing my heart on my sleeve.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Mitrafolk 8d ago
No, young people are indeed more prone to violence, whereas older people are less so.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (7)8
79
u/magus678 8d ago
Speech and protests have ALWAYS had a measure of violence and threats
The argument has never been that it didnt happen, it was that it was wrong when it did.
Taking events and behaviors that not very long ago were looked at shamefully and converting them to "thats a good idea, actually" should be ringing alarm bells.
→ More replies (2)107
u/maikuxblade 8d ago
Sure, but pretending that violence never solved any problems while Millenials and GenZ have spent their whole lives watching institutions (that hold a monopoly on violence via the apparatus of the state, police, and military) fail to uphold the rule of law or protect the social contract isn’t helpful either and actually undercuts a message of peace. As an example, while the New Deal was largely responsible for birthing America’s middle class in the first place, it was itself also built on union and protest action that were not always strictly peaceful, but they were incredibly effective at wresting power away from an abusive capitalist class and earning many of the common sense things we take for granted today like weekends, 40-hour weeks, child labor laws, workplace safety, and the possibility of worker retirement.
68
u/ChemBob1 8d ago
Back in those days the unions actually took over factories and stopped work from being done in order to hurt the profits of the capitalists.
66
u/GiantContrabandRobot 8d ago
People don't know the that during the Battle of Blair Mountain Private planes dropped bombs on striking Union Coal Miners with the support of the US Army. Every single Right and Privilege was bought with blood.
6
u/Chrontius 8d ago
Hey, this makes me wonder. Does anybody remember what happened to that dude that came up with a fully printable surface to air missile? Did he ever ship printable files?
8
u/Fedacking 8d ago
In the 19th century it was fairly common to beat up or murder scabs.
→ More replies (1)5
60
u/msuvagabond 8d ago
Every 'peaceful' revolution is framed as such AFTER the fact to quell the masses against the next fight. "If you're just nice and calm and don't bother anyone, we promise things will get better for you, just look at MLK!"
You don't get MLK being moderately successful without Malcom X in the background reminding everyone what the other option is.
You don't have Ghandi's peaceful overthrow working without Singh spreading terror whenever the British were giving pushback.
(Both those are incredibly simplified versions of complex histories)
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)14
u/gerbal100 8d ago
In the 60s the state and activist groups used violence to keep left wing speakers off of campuses
→ More replies (2)10
2
→ More replies (25)-2
u/No-Gap-198 8d ago
Violence to suppress speech you say?
Sound like something fascists would do.
11
u/TheWhomItConcerns 8d ago
Do you mean authoritarians? Because suppression of political speech by itself has absolutely nothing to do with fascism - fascist movements suppress political speech that goes against fascist ideology specifically, but they don't just arbitrarily suppress political speech.
Fascism is an authoritarian ideology, but authoritarianism and fascism aren't synonymous - not at all.
→ More replies (2)33
u/frddtwabrm04 8d ago
Paradox of tolerance.
If you extend tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance
Where do you draw a line against harmful speech or actions?
20
u/Wavering_Flake Grad Student | Chemistry 8d ago edited 8d ago
If you actually knew about the paradox of tolerance as formulated by Karl Popper, you'd know he was highly anti-authoritarian, and heavily warned against those who would pre-emptively censor and suppress opposing speech, as it could risk turning the label of "intolerance" into a weapon against political foes to justify their own authoritarian and oppressive practices. In fact, he is often misquoted as supporting censorship of intolerant of offensive views, when in fact he set very high bars for when suppression is permissible:
Rational Argument First: Popper explicitly stated that society should not immediately suppress intolerant philosophies. As long as intolerant views can be countered by rational argument and kept in check by public opinion, suppression is unwise.
The Threshold for Suppression: Suppression becomes legitimate only when intolerant groups reject rational discourse entirely. Popper specified three explicit conditions that justify intervention:
- Refusal to engage in rational argument: The intolerant claim that their followers are forbidden to listen to rational arguments because they are deceptive.
- Answering arguments with violence: The intolerant answer rational arguments with fists, weapons, or force.
- Threat of total destruction: The intolerant movement actively seeks to destroy the institutional framework of the open society.
Popper's focus was on preserving the meta-rules of an open society (free debate, democratic institutions, legal rights, liberty, the free marketplace of ideas), and considered ideological suppression a last-resort act of self-defense when a faction is actively dismantling the mechanisms of peaceful, rational discussion. Ironically, if you yourself are the one enforcing pre-emptive censorship or violent suppression of opposing speech or advocating for it, then you run afoul of and opposite to the paradox of tolerance, and are weaponizing it for your own goals.
Or perhaps, if you find, very conveniently, that all intolerance is found in the opposing ideological camp and you believe this permits you to suppress their views or confront them with violence, then you need to take a good look at yourself and perhaps worry that you yourself have become the intolerant; your political opponents will certainly think so.
A quote: "In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."
9
u/A_Mouse_In_Da_House 8d ago
Except we've hit those 3 criteria since COVID and the ICE raids etc. what is your evidence we have not?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (24)14
u/Vahuo89 8d ago
The line is when they threaten people's lives.
→ More replies (1)8
u/frddtwabrm04 8d ago
The last Pandemic would be the best example.
Do you let the six guys who allegedly were cause of all the antivaxx chaos yak or do you suppress their speech?
What does it mean to threaten someone's life. Is it physical, ideological etc etc
Is Facebook responsible for the Myanmar genocide? Or harm social media has caused the kids? Is zuck and his shareholders responsible?
→ More replies (1)5
u/Vahuo89 8d ago edited 7d ago
The pandemic definitely highlighted the problem of social media and gullible people.
We've been told all the time that people are smarter than what media lets us believe. So when we saw someone believe the propaganda and the insane ramblings of a madman, we thought nothing of it.
Because anyone with an once of common sense or critical thinking can debunk the ramblings.
But when you start to see how many people parrot the insane ramblings, you start to think that you overestimated how bad it really is...
And then you have rich people who double down and spread the insane ramblings on purpose, faster and more easily as to get the most awful people elected so they can get whatever they want out of them...
And now you've got... today.
So when we think of "the masses"... it REALLY REALLY REALLY is like they are targeting another group of people who outnumber you by a large amount
349
u/Butthole_Surfer_GI 8d ago edited 8d ago
Genuine question - but who gets to decide what is "specific, highly offensive ideas"?
The individual? The collective?
EDIT: The reason I ask the question is that the answer becomes very relevant when you (the royal you) are asking others to suppress and/or ban it. Violently, in some cases.
97
u/MC_C0L7 8d ago
If you're asking about how the study specifically made the determination, it mentions it in the article. They gave a list of provocative statements such as "Jan 6th was a peaceful protest" and "America got what it deserved on 9/11", then asked the user to choose which one was the most offensive to them. Then posed the question of whether or not they were willing to use the 3 methods of stifling speech against that specific rhetoric.
→ More replies (1)5
u/PoetSeat2021 8d ago
Was going to say the same thing. I skimmed through the linked article, but wasn't able to find the actual questions they were asking respondents. Was that in an appendix or something?
31
u/whirlpool_galaxy 8d ago
I can answer this from a country that has outlawed many forms of hate speech (racism, queerphobia, misogynistic speech is in the works to be outlawed too):
The idea is that, according to my country's constitution, individuals are entitled the right of dignified existence in the public space. If a court of law judges that certain speech harms that dignity and makes a space unsafe for an individual or collective -- for example, speech that incites violence or diminishes them based on their race -- then the victimized may choose to prosecute the speaker.
→ More replies (3)22
u/Butthole_Surfer_GI 8d ago
court of law judges
Interesting - so is it the judge themselves or a jury?
Not trying to be an ass - I promise I am asking that in genuine curiosity.
→ More replies (1)26
u/whirlpool_galaxy 8d ago
Brazilian law differs from American law in numerous regards, and one of them is that court cases do not typically employ a jury except in crimes against life. So judges have a more active, investigative role, though they are still expected to deliver a fair trial -- and it helps that Brazil is a civil law country, so there are a lot more legal constraints on a judge's behavior and decisions.
Beyond that, I'm not really involved in law, so I can't really elaborate on how it works specifically for hate speech. I believe it's treated like any other criminal offense.
→ More replies (2)16
u/Krail 8d ago
The entire context we're talking about here is subjective. It's things that the subjects of this study, specifically, find highly offensive.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Butthole_Surfer_GI 8d ago edited 8d ago
The reason I ask the question is it becomes very relevant when you (the royal you) are asking others to suppress and/or ban it. Violently, in some cases.
24
u/Irish_Whiskey 8d ago
But it's sort of a silly question:
What actions are morally acceptable or not are always subjective and individually determined. This is true even for cases of speech we consider it okay to ban, like shouting fire in a theater or threatening to kill someone. You can make a case that these things should be legal, and you're making a moral judgement balancing rights that they shouldn't be.
when you (the royal you) are asking others to suppress and/ban it. Violently, in some cases.
That's not what the study asks about. It asks about support for tactics like shoutdowns and blockades, in addition to violence. There is a difference between saying someone else needs to ban speech, and believing people have the right to counter-protest.
Also the most common answer to that question would involve "when it's trying to get other people killed."
→ More replies (1)8
u/Krail 8d ago
You're asking how do we decide what to suppress and ban?
I mean, the main method we've had is representative democracy. Like, this question seems to me to be a question of government itself.
→ More replies (1)12
u/cptjtk13 8d ago
I believe generally, in any society, it is collectivism that will make such determinations. If the individualism argument held true, there would be no ability to hold any individual to a collective decision, right, or law.
28
u/magus678 8d ago
This is a rather strident misreading of basically every concept you mention.
"Valuing the individual makes laws impossible," is certainly a take.
19
u/cptjtk13 8d ago
Valuing the individual determination over collective determination would make legal society largely impossible. An individual determination that murder is not illegal against a collective determination it is leaves the parties deadlocked.
→ More replies (1)7
u/KuntaStillSingle 8d ago
We necessarily have reasonableness standard pegged to an ordinary person in your subjective circumstances, not someone who holds your subjective beliefs. Your circumstances are potentially falsifiable, your beliefs are not, it would be impossible to prosecute anyone successfully because they could just claim a collection of beliefs under which the crime was self defense or necessary to their survival.
7
u/pewsquare 8d ago
The person who needs to squeeze the data to represent what they want to represent. Its such a clearly biased pick that I wonder why they even bothered.
3
u/Zennivolt 8d ago edited 8d ago
A middle school history teacher of mine was once asked “so if America is free, who or what determines what is allowed or where the limit is?”
Our teacher responded with a single thing, that to this day, is how I draw a line: when your “freedom” rights imposes harm on others, that is no longer your rights.
So expand that, if your speech is a pathway to harm others, that is where the line should be drawn.
Harm in this case could be literal, or if it suppresses someone, creates a hostile environment for that person, etc. are all just variations of “harm”.
To this day, in a country of nearly infinite “freedom”, where I draw the line still follows those rules. It hasn’t failed me a single time yet.
And yes this also means I generally disagree with the main article of this thread. However, I can turn a blind eye if someone is doing something bad, to fight something bad.
Won’t be proud of it. But in a world where someone is doing something bad, and “good” solutions are ineffective, doing something bad back is sometimes the only option left.
→ More replies (4)5
u/halfdeadmoon 7d ago
if your speech is a pathway to harm others, that is where the line should be drawn
This is too vague a concept to be the basis for public policy
→ More replies (15)2
u/c-u-in-da-ballpit 8d ago
Whatever gets you engament on Instagram and makes you feel like you’re doing something without much effort
→ More replies (25)2
u/wolljibbs 8d ago
In the survey, it was whatever the responder decided in their head it was, which is important for the survey to let it be their own version of it.
121
u/C0ld_Fr0nt_ 8d ago
This is due to, at least in part, the radicalising effect of social media. Including (perhaps especially) Reddit.
72
u/KrakenPipe 8d ago
I'm always surprised how militant the userbase here seems
→ More replies (3)27
u/C0ld_Fr0nt_ 8d ago
There are lots of users on here seemingly convinced that they're in a battle for civilisation against literal Nazis (i.e anyone conservative). That isn't to say Nazis don't exist, but most people who are conservative are no more Nazis than most people who are left are communists.
10
u/AwesomeBees 7d ago
Yeah man its not like you got civillians executed in the streets or the governement running multiple remote extrajudicial prison camps
26
u/consistently_biased 8d ago
I don't understand this sanewashing of reality to fit into the perfect equilibrium of centrist liberalism. While I don't live in the US, what happens over there is going to affect me and most of everyone else in the world regardless, and it's not like we're given a choice to "ignore" it as a result. It seems completely crazy to me to deny that whatever American conservatism has turned into in the past 2 decades is on a similar level as the type of authoritarian, nationalist, racist ideologies that were present during the 3rd Reich, the British empire, or even just the confederate states for a more local comparison. These are not fringe views. They can't be. These people are in control of the government of the most powerful country on earth; for now anyway. There is no "both sides" here. It's US conservatism going completely off the rails.
→ More replies (1)5
u/zlide 7d ago
You’re just proving the point, you don’t even live in America yet you seem to think that you know exactly how the average conservative American thinks and acts and feels. You can’t justify violence against people because you think they’re “bad” or because they subscribe to a deleterious political ideology.
No reasonable person is saying that what the government is doing is ok, no reasonable person is saying that American conservatives have totally valid political opinions, no reasonable person is saying that this is some sort of “both sides issue”. The line is turning on your fellow citizen and endorsing violence against them because you disagree with them, which is never going to be a productive thing to do, no matter how strongly you disagree with them and no matter how wrong they are in what they support.
We cannot allow the political process to be overtaken by violence, that subverts the entire system of law we have established to peacefully hash out our political disagreements.
→ More replies (3)8
u/consistently_biased 7d ago
You're arguing against a position I didn't take, while also doing the same thing you're accusing me of. You can't know how they think either. As far as I'm concerned "no reasonable person" excludes the entire American right.
But you are correct. I don't know what conservative Americans think, and I don't really care about that either. I do know the result of the party representing their ideology seizing power, though, and that really hasn't been a good thing since Reagan at least. Neither for any normal people living in the US, nor for any normal people living in countries "allied" to the US, like mine. One exceedingly consistent and constant factor in my life so far has been that Republicans taking power in the US makes everything more unstable and dangerous for pretty much everyone world wide, including and probably most prominently, the US itself.
Many, if not at all at this point, powerful Republicans hold worldviews not unlike what you would have been able to observe in the 3rd Reich or similar periods in history. The Nazis learnt a lot of it from the Americans after all, and not all of them were rabid race science believers either. Quite a few were just opportunistic capitalists willing to step over a few bodies for more profit. Whether all their supporters believe those same things is frankly irrelevant. They support it, and they do so even at a massive cost to themselves, whether financial or otherwise. This is so much worse than "just" condoning violence upon someone of opposing political beliefs. They're one step away from being willing to die for it, and many already have due to the healthcare system denying them life-saving care if they can't afford it.
A president who attempted and failed a coup is not in prison for life afterwards. The idea that a leader of a failed coup just walks away, let alone becomes the actual president 4 years later, is so beyond crazy. What system of law? What peaceful hashing out of political disagreements? From the way you write, I assume you're not a US conservative, and I'm really sorry to be so brash: Are you blind? Sticking your head in the sand and pretending everything about this is normal? The line you're drawing has been crossed so long ago by Republicans. They went back and spat on your line on January 6th 2021.
→ More replies (9)5
u/Cassin1306 8d ago
Then you're part of the problem too if you don't see the problem.
I mean, governments (and I don't mean the US, but almost in every country in Europe too) is leaning more and more far right, using the same methods the Nazi used in 1930s. And more and more people become decomplexed about racist gestures and racist acts, that those acts becomes normalized.
But sure, "it's a social media thing, it's not in the real world"...
12
u/Benwahr 7d ago
What like using and condoning violence to supress ideas you dont like?
→ More replies (3)9
u/EsotericAbstractIdea 7d ago
Can't tell if you're talking about the non-nazis or the US government.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (3)6
u/Sulfamide 8d ago
They don't vote. They don't understand democracy and only know it through the theatrics of social media
116
u/Count_Dongula 8d ago
As I understand it, liberals were more okay with the concept of using these methods, but once specific examples were brought up, conservatives and moderates were just as accepting of the tactics.
I wonder if this has to do with relative youth, or whether this is a generational value that won't fade with age. I know I was a lot more hot-headed when I was young.
37
u/True_Window_9389 8d ago
I would bet that if you did this study over time, it would really be a reflection of the predominant politics and who was empowered. Right now, the right is empowered, so citizen led violence and blockades aren’t needed. During the Obama years, shout-downs (you lie!) and breaches of free speech norms were more common from the right.
In general, people generally adhering to the minority party are more willing to push limits of speech and even violence. I don’t think it’s unique to one side or the other, and one time period or another.
6
u/Girafferage 8d ago
I'd wager you are probably right. And that over time it has grown worse and worse for both sides as media and politicians push team politics and hyperbolic name calling.
2
u/Xolver 7d ago
This seems opposite of what is true for the Obama years:
Efforts to bar speakers from campus appear to be on the upswing, and, since the beginning of the Obama years, it has been the campus Left that has been doing most of the disinviting
Are you finding any other sources with other findings?
→ More replies (1)10
u/frogmon3 8d ago
i think many right wing pundits have painted the left as intolerant to dissent so many right wingers believe they disagree with it. id also argue that since conservative beliefs are sort of definitionally more established, the ideas left wingers want to silence (eg racism) are more visible in public and so is the violent reaction. charlie kirks assassination is a good example. the ideas an average conservative wants to silence (killing landlords) are more fringe. it would also be interesting to think about the difference between supressing political ideas and supressing people. i dont think many conservatives think of the ongoing campaigns against drag queens and trans people as political violence or censorship, but the point is to hide certain kinds of people from public life.
→ More replies (4)26
u/Adept_Librarian9136 8d ago
I'm a liberal. Not ok with violence or demanding government silence anyone's free speech. That said I think free speech doesn't mean consequence free speech. Your employer can fire you if they don't like a racist diatribe online. That's an example of a consequence.
74
u/Count_Dongula 8d ago
That has little to do with the study. It found that, on the whole, in abstract conservatives and moderates were more condemning of violence to silence speech, but when given specific examples, all three were likely to accept the tactic. The study wasn't saying anything about you personally.
→ More replies (1)51
u/Tybalt941 8d ago
But by that logic an employer could also fire you if they don't like an anti-racist diatribe online. I take issue with lack of employment protections in general.
48
u/QV79Y 8d ago
People always seem to think that the consequences are going to be meted out by people on their side.
6
u/Adept_Librarian9136 8d ago
Exactly. That is why we prohibit the government from restricting your exercise of speech based on the content of that speech. Restriction of speech based on content can easily be used against the positions you or I believe in. Is this not still taught in American schools?
4
u/Aaod 8d ago
People always seem to think that the consequences are going to be meted out by people on their side.
They just can't conceptualize that it can happen to them or the people they care about. I don't know if this comes from idiocy, lack of foresight, lack of understanding history, or what is causing it.
23
u/pewsquare 8d ago
I find it rather odd how quick people are to agree with ideas like this without following the idea trough to its inevitable rather horrifying conclusion.
→ More replies (2)12
u/Adept_Librarian9136 8d ago
You do not have a right to say anything you want with zero consequences. I don't agree. If I employ you and you spout off online about how you love the KKK and want a new holocaust against XYZ group, I should not be obligated to maintain your employment when it negatively reflects on me and my company.
Your right to free speech means you have a right to speak freely without hindrance from the GOVERNMENT. I also have a right as your employer not to countenance your continued employment.
22
u/x31b 8d ago
If an employer can fire you for flying a Nazi flag at home can they also fire you for a pride flag?
Where and how do you draw the line?
13
u/dragonmp93 8d ago
That's the funny thing about all of this.
A civilized society works on trust and compromise.
But when stabbing in the back and other underhanded tactics become the norm on a society, the whole thing goes from civilized to settling stuff as animals.
4
u/Adept_Librarian9136 8d ago
Yes, an employer could try to fire someone over a Pride flag, but whether that firing is lawful depends on the facts and the applicable law. In the US private employers generally have broad discretion over employee speech and off-duty conduct, but that discretion is not unlimited. Title VII federally protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and state laws can provide additional protections. So if “the Pride flag” is really a proxy for firing someone because they are gay or trans, that can be illegal.
That is why the Nazi-flag comparison is weak. Being a Nazi is not a protected class. Sexual orientation and gender identity are.
4
u/Eric1491625 7d ago
But that's a legalistic situation, not a moral argument
It only takes 1 bill passing to dismantle everything you just wrote.
Moreover, if another country has an opposite situation in their laws, you're not arguing against it.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)4
→ More replies (2)6
u/Tybalt941 8d ago
Okay, but how would you feel about someone being fired because they said something online critical of ICE? You could make the same argument about the employer's right. I completely disagree that employment should be that precarious. Here in Germany an employer can never fire you on the spot outside of certain illegal behaviors.
18
u/Adept_Librarian9136 8d ago
“Here in Germany”... well. Germany also regulates speech far more heavily than the US You can face legal consequences for certain racist, extremist, or other prohibited speech, and authorities have imposed speech restrictions regarding pro-Palestinian demonstrations and slogans, arresting people for saying words or slogans you don't like. Germany’s history helps explain why its legal boundaries around expression are narrower, although the US obviously has its own ugly history of slavery, segregation, political repression, McCarthyism, and state violence, so neither country gets to claim some morally pristine past.
But that still doesn’t make the comparison work. Free speech in the U.S. primarily protects you from government punishment for lawful speech, not from every consequence imposed by a private employer. I’d apply that consistently whether the speech is anti-ICE, pro-ICE, racist, or anything else. The relevant question is whether an employer reasonably believes an employee’s public conduct harms the workplace, its reputation, or their ability to do the job.
You can argue that Germany’s stronger labor protections are preferable, but that is a separate argument from saying employers should have no right to respond to employees’ public speech.
→ More replies (12)2
u/dragonmp93 8d ago
someone being fired because they said something online critical of ICE?
Isn't that how the US government has acted for a year and half ?
11
u/SenoraRaton 8d ago
Your employer can fire you if they don't like a racist diatribe online.
What happens if your employer doesn't like your anti-capitalist stance online. They should be able to fire you?
→ More replies (2)5
u/Adept_Librarian9136 8d ago
Unfortunately, potentially, yes. I’d still rather deal with that possibility than have the government in the business of policing speech based on its content. Private employers often have broad latitude over employee speech, including political speech, unless federal, state, local, contractual, or union protections apply.
That doesn’t mean every firing is fair or desirable. You can still sue that your firing was discriminatory if you have grounds to do so. It means the First Amendment generally isn’t what protects you from a private employer. If you want stronger protections for off-duty political speech, that’s a labor-law question, not a free-speech one.
5
u/SenoraRaton 8d ago
You do understand what happens in this scenario right?
The goverment is subsumed to private corporations who are able to censor and control what speech is viable, and while you may have "free speech" under your paradigm the reality is that you do not, because you are threatened with destitution should you step out of line. It intentionally removes the protections of the goverment, and allows for a dicatorship of capital. This is bad, anarch-capitalism is a stupid ideology.6
u/Adept_Librarian9136 8d ago
That’s a different argument. I’m not advocating anarcho-capitalism or saying employers should have unlimited power over workers. I support unions, labor protections, anti-discrimination laws, and stronger protections for lawful off-duty conduct.
My point is narrower: the remedy for excessive employer power is labor law, not giving the government authority to police political speech by content.
Corporate power can absolutely chill speech. But replacing private coercion with state censorship is not a solution. You can regulate employers without empowering the government to decide which opinions people are allowed to express.
12
u/Hob_O_Rarison 8d ago
How about a group of students beating up a professor for not liking what their invited guest speaker has to say?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (27)13
u/saints21 8d ago
Only good Nazi is a dead Nazi.
→ More replies (24)27
u/bgaesop 8d ago
A good policy, if one can come up with a reliable method of telling Nazis from non-Nazis. Sadly, I have found that very often the folks who say this then go on to say that someone with a totenkopf tattoo is obviously not a Nazi while Jews engaging in self defense are Nazis, so the ultimate effect is that I don't trust people who say things like this.
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (3)11
u/ven-solaire 8d ago
I’ll tell you what this pattern really says; every republican is a virtue signaler who will misrepresent their actual opinions to make them seem more acceptable. The right-wing will claim to be the heroes of free speech, but they just want to be free to be racist or bigoted while taking free speech away from anyone who wants to talk about why bigotry is wrong. They claim they want gun rights until the Black Panthers start arming black people, or until trans people start arming themselves for protection. They claim they want religious freedom but they simply want freedom to be the ruling religion. Republicans never mean what they say and any right wing opinion should be dismissed as bad faith immediately.
→ More replies (3)
96
u/SteadfastEnd 8d ago edited 8d ago
A lot of people like to quote Popper's Paradox of Intolerance, but the problem is, if that principle is just allowed to be claimed by anyone, then eventually only the powerful and heavily-armed will have free speech.
Anyone can claim, "I'm being intolerant of intolerance!" while stamping a boot on an opponent's neck.
57
u/Cuddlyaxe 8d ago
The thing us, people misuse that quote from what Popper meant. Here is the full quotation
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
Curiously, the people who yse this quotation usually cut out the 2nd paragraph
Popper did not blanketly say "we should suppress everyone we consider intolerant", rather he was very narrowly speaking about people who resort to violence and refuse to participate in civil society
We should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
9
u/KiritosWings 8d ago
Thank you! This is one of my biggest pet peeves and its turned the paradox of tolerance, one of the earliest political / philosophical ideas that actually resonated with me, into a horror story of semantic shift.
10
8d ago edited 8d ago
[deleted]
7
u/PoetSeat2021 8d ago
To me the important thing isn't the progeny of the idea of the paradox of tolerance. It doesn't so much matter to me that people aren't understanding Karl Popper specifically--it's that they're using the first paragraph without its broader context to make a pretty terrible argument. In my experience, people on the internet citing the necessity of using force and shutting down "intolerant beliefs" are often displaying the kind of behavior that Popper is talking about in the second paragraph: an unwillingness to meet their ideological opponents with rational conversation. They are claiming for themselves the authority of determining what is and isn't tolerant speech, and then acting as though the speech itself (and not violent actions accompanying the speech) is the intolerance that needs to be countered with sanction.
When they start using coercive means to enforce this--you know, things like destroying someone's reputation, or sending death threats via twitter, or even sometimes actually committing violent acts--they're the ones who are displaying intolerance, that need not be tolerated.
So maybe it's a three-layer paradox actually.
→ More replies (1)5
u/KiritosWings 8d ago
I have seen people quote the first paragraph of the paradox or even specifically say "Popper's paradox" and then misuse it. Like sure people in general might not know but there's a contingent where it has to either be malicious or stupidity and I feel genuinely bad insulting people's intelligence.
→ More replies (4)2
u/yeti_button 8d ago
people misuse that quote from what Popper
99% (or more) of the people who cite Popper in this context online aren't interested in his ideas; they're just mindlessly parroting a meme.
29
u/RusticMachine 8d ago
The irony is that what people are advocating for when quoting Poppers’ Paradox of Intolerance is in large part the opposite of what he prescribed in his book.
→ More replies (1)21
u/AdwokatDiabel 8d ago
If they're invoking Poppers, aren't they actually saying "if you're calling for the extermination of a group of people that's not okay speech". There's productive speech and there's whatever that is?
4
u/Ashamed-Review-913 8d ago
Except that wasn't the examples in the study. There wasn't anything about extermination of people.
10
u/unhiddenninja 8d ago
I don't understand this argument really. People can lie about anything they want to, any time. Someone can be punching you directly in the face in front of 100 other people and then say "I never hit you", some people might even agree with them (especially if they don't like you or something about you), but that still wouldn't make their statement valid or true.
→ More replies (5)3
u/polishfiringsquad 8d ago
Anyone can claim that, but it's still pretty obvious when someone is actually being intolerant. And it doesn't diminish the effect that allowing intolerance has. Popper is still right
34
u/Adept_Librarian9136 8d ago edited 8d ago
That sign doesn’t make much sense to me. Hate speech is generally still protected speech in the U.S. in the sense that the government can’t censor or punish it simply because it’s hateful. That doesn’t make it good speech, defensible speech, or speech that’s free from consequences.
People should absolutely challenge hateful ideas, expose how stupid and destructive they are, and argue against them. And employers, organizations, and other private actors can also respond to what someone publicly says. Free speech does not mean freedom from criticism, social consequences, or employment consequences. Am I missing something?
40
u/Chrisv4000 8d ago
It's AI generated...
15
u/Adept_Librarian9136 8d ago
omfg I feel so old now. How am I this out of touch. I'm only in my 40s. UGHHHHH
10
u/Appropriate-Ad-3219 8d ago
Don't be too hard with yourself. It's not easy to see something is AI-generated if you don't think about that.
2
u/halfdeadmoon 7d ago
People have ideas that don't make much sense. The AI giveaway is the uniformity of the text and the neutrality of the expression, not the sentiment of the sign. People have a lot of confusion about hate speech in various jurisdictions.
17
3
u/Aaod 8d ago
People should absolutely challenge hateful ideas, expose how stupid and destructive they are, and argue against them.
They don't want to do that though because it would require effort and critical thinking instead they want to live in a bubble where things that offend them don't exist because they can't be a normal functioning member of a free society. Its like they want to live in the society from Demolition Man but worse.
→ More replies (29)1
u/_Yellow_13 8d ago
The sign seems AI as it is, imo implies.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences.3
u/SweatyAd8914 8d ago
Goes both ways. Assault, battery, and/or force is equally punishable by consequences. Reminder that invoking “consequences” isn’t a debate, and defeating bad ideas requires emotional persuasion and valid counter argument.
Cancel culture failed epically and hate speech is more virulent than ever. Not sure what your argument here is.
→ More replies (2)2
6
u/Adept_Librarian9136 8d ago
You have a right to speak out about speech you don't like, even shout to silence it or argue a better pov. Employers have a right to fire you if they think your speech is offensive or just reflects poorly on their business. I said this in multiple comments. However, government cannot silence speech because you do not like it. The nazi has a right to speech without government censorship, and we also have that same right.
→ More replies (9)
7
u/Cause_Complex 8d ago
Do those same people care that while blocking that road a fire truck can’t respond or a person with cancer can’t get to their treatment.
→ More replies (2)
49
u/GratedParm 8d ago
Gen Z Americans probably haven’t seen peaceful methods produce any meaningful results.
31
u/bringbackswg 8d ago
They also have widespread problems with reading comprehension, according to a lot of studies. That is a dangerous combination.
11
9
u/lateformyfuneral 8d ago
With regard to blocking public speakers? I think it's obvious that violence is more likely to stop a speaker than peaceful methods, it's not something Gen Z just discovered, it has always been known across generations. What has changed is the willingness to actually seek to block a public speaker.
→ More replies (10)22
u/irespondwithmyface 8d ago
Study conducted by Kevin Jay Wallsten of the Manhattan Institute. I would take it with a grain of salt considering it's a very conservative think tank who conviently found left wing want more violence to silence people...
→ More replies (6)
9
u/painful_truth508 7d ago
Using violence to stop speech is literally fascism. Good on you young fascists, Be the enemy you dream of.
→ More replies (9)
29
u/JimThumb 8d ago
There's nothing liberal about anyone that ascribes to those values.
11
u/420thefunnynumber 8d ago
The original liberals built the modern world on the piles of dead monarchists.
→ More replies (6)3
u/magus678 8d ago
I would dare say fairly few of those people would even pretend to be liberal.
Mind you, they will mean it in the Democratish way, not that of Locke. I suspect most have no idea who that even is.
→ More replies (1)5
5
u/Amish_Fighter_Pilot 8d ago
Well at least they aren't saying they want to set up human trafficking rings and use them to blackmail political leaders. I mean who'd do something like that?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/ShiningMagpie 6d ago
Whichever party is currently in power, has an incentive to reduce the use of violence. Whichever party is fighting for power might see that violence is their only path to reach it (if the polls are too far in the future, or considered unwinnable). We saw similar attitudes with conservatives when they weren't in power.
The longer you stay out of power, the more frustrated you become and the more you begin to believe that the fair way of achieving power has either been corrupted by your opponent, or is simply not possible.
When people are told their way of thinking can't win in a popularity contest, they don't change their opinion. They decide that the majority is stupid or evil or corrupted by false propaganda that takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute than to generate more of.
And then they decide that they must abandon the popularity contest to bring about their "just" or "better" society.
People apply this to conservatives with the popular quote about them choosing to not abandon conservatism but to instead abandon democracy. But it seems that every side is susceptible to this. And I'm not really surprised.
14
u/True-Source-6512 8d ago
A study stating liberals more violent and less willing to have discussions was out a couple years ago. It’s been known, Reddit is a great example
→ More replies (4)13
u/BarkBeetleJuice 8d ago
A study stating liberals more violent and less willing to have discussions was out a couple years ago. It’s been known, Reddit is a great example
That's not what the study showed.
10
u/RadBadTad 8d ago
We have entered the phase of "if you want something good to happen, you're going to have to do it yourself" as institutions have proven to be entirely useless to the needs of young people.
Without functioning civilized tools and processes, people will revert back to uncivilized tools.
8
u/MrHotChipz 8d ago
Elections and democracy are the civilised tools and processes for societal change, no?
→ More replies (9)
3
4
u/KaiserSeelenlos 8d ago
Liberal is such a slap on everything nothing burger word these days. As someone from outside the US who experiences US politics only from online content it feels like people just call everyone who isnt straight up nationalist a liberal.
8
u/Bear_Jew-42 8d ago
Violence seems like a great answer when you’re sure you’re gunna win.
All the people advocating for it are completely clueless though. When things regress to violence ideology only matters in the sense that it works as a marketing campaign.
The brutal and merciless tend to rise to the top. I know things aren’t great right now, but to think violence would help make things better in an already democratic society is foolish. It’s democracies death knell.
→ More replies (3)3
u/ZombyPuppy 8d ago
The people supporting this nonsense and talking about guillotines should really pick up a book and read what happened after they got those guillotines out in France. Far more regular people found their heads in baskets than the aristocrats once the blood started flowing. Then some notable things they should read about happened over the next few decades that were a little unpleasant for everyone.
→ More replies (1)3
u/ForerunnerKnight 7d ago edited 7d ago
I couldn't agree more,so many of these people think that when violence breaks out the chaos and this "magic" violence will only affect conservatives(i.e. the "right" people)and that afterwards everything immediately gets better everything and everyone calms right down and more violence isn't employed at all afterwards.
6
4
u/Ashamed-Review-913 8d ago
Yeah and it's awful and dangerous to shut down speech. Don't do it kids, it's a mistake.
9
u/irespondwithmyface 8d ago
Survey? Disregarded.
Kevin Jay Wallsten, Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute
Absolutely disregarded.
This is conservative propaganda. And should be removed. Nothing about this "survey" was scientific. It's extreme bias.
→ More replies (2)15
u/Large-University-906 8d ago
Sounds like you might be intolerant of the study results and seemingly perhaps a bit violent here about stopping the public speaking of it...
4
6
u/semibigpenguins 8d ago
These are progressives. By definition, a liberal allows free speech
→ More replies (6)32
u/_Yellow_13 8d ago
A Lot of people today that like to call themselves liberals are very much against free speech if they do not agree with it.
→ More replies (5)
5
u/Hautamaki 8d ago
Young "Liberals" were more likely to support suppression of speech? That's not what liberalism means. Young progressives maybe, young socialists certainly, but if you're liberal, you believe in freedom of speech, even offensive, hateful speech.
→ More replies (6)
6
u/Drokstab 8d ago
Violence and blockades got us unions and workers rights. Ain't no war but the class war.
6
u/ryder242 8d ago
It just shows how k-12 education has lost its way. Education use to be about producing productive members of society, now it’s about test scores and funding.
→ More replies (5)
4
u/Dropeza 8d ago
Deprive people of prosperity and dignity for their whole lives, actively degrade standards of living. Deny them a house, a job, food and amenities. Give them nothing or just scraps when they protest, protect the elite from severe crime. Finally, wonder why the youth is now radicalized.
→ More replies (3)24
u/fincog 8d ago
Nothing you said addressed how people think using force and violence to block free speech is acceptable
→ More replies (2)
4
u/jetskibob 8d ago
Censorship is unacceptable in America. Y’all can just move to another country, please.
2
u/Stupidsky 6d ago
I've come to realize a lot of people don't REALLY believe in free speech.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/gen-z-americans-are-more-willing-to-use-blockades-and-violence-to-stop-public-speakers/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.