The final PPh tells us how stupid and dangerous this author is:
>>In one of our conversations, Mr. Powell compared harmful speech to carbon pollution: People are allowed to drive cars. But the government can regulate greenhouse emissions, the private sector can transition to renewable energy sources, civic groups can promote public transportation and cities can build sea walls to prepare for rising ocean levels. We could choose to reduce all of that to a simple dictate: Everyone should be allowed to drive a car, and that’s that. But doing so wouldn’t stop the waters from rising around us.<<
Wrong on the analogy — speech can not be linked to anything except the receiver’s perception. Wrong on oceans rising from driving cars (we have yet to see the waters rise in 30 years of Chicken Little).
But as a lefty he wants the cancel culture — have the government eliminate speech lefty doesn’t like (no matter the weasel words he puts in the piece).
This is a reversion to tribal morality, that anything that violates social norms is a literal threat to the community.
This is the moral reasoning Islam uses to equate blasphemy and open dissent of Shariah mandates with attempted murder of all believers .... and justifies executing them to protect society.
You hear the same emotional foundation when someone says “you’re invalidating our existence” or even “you’re killing us” when you challenge social orthodoxy. They equate the emotional upset with attempted murder - and that would allow them to kill you in self-defense or for their tribe’s protection.