There is little in this life that I would find as reprehensible as censorship. Though the malicious or malignant idea may engender offense and though the words or sentiments of the agent provocateur may even incite others to despicable or deplorable acts, the intentional effort to silence another entirely and forbid them from expression is perhaps itself the height of truly atrocious acts one may engage in, in respect to engagement and communication. Beyond the simple matter of its gross and repressive nature, the act or effort to censor or silence another, either before or in the course of their expression is equally a wholly disingenuous act of a supposedly strident thinker or speaker, while also being emblematic of their own inherent insecurity in the notions and ideas they may seek to posit.

Thought often the province of the single minded totalitarian, such is and can be observed to be present throughout any variety of political or social ideological alignment one may think of, as it supercedes the very notions of inclusivity which is more and more frequently, being enacted by those who would claim to be the champions of such. For to those who seek “safe spaces,” the proverbial slippery slope into abject orthodoxy and the adherence to an insistence that such be the only true or acceptable notions espoused in the open market of ideas, the very act of seeking to silence opposition as opposed to offering retorts, in effect closes the very market in which they would peddle their intellectual or sociological wares and in doing so, exposes the very sort of fear, hatred and intolerance that they would otherwise seek to condemn.

Should one truly be secure in their convictions, then the fear of opposition or questioning should be non existent. Should one truly believe that which they say is to be true, right and just, then surely they should, in the course of offering such to the world, not only be unafraid of opposition, but welcoming of it, as it is only through such conflict and argument that the true validity of such may be shown and the real and proper strength of said convictions be truly fleshed out. Absent this, argument itself is nothing but empty propagandist rhetoric, meant to fall on the ears of those already in agreement and those who in the absence of a contrary position offered, have no choice but to accept such as fact.

In this, should a speaker, thinker, writer or advocate of any idea or of any stripe wish to be taken as respected intellectual, and their ideas themselves taken as worthy of consideration, their openness to opposition and contradiction by opposing parties is not only a right and good thing to court, but an essential one. For it is within the realm of argument that the notions and positions offered may truly win the hearts and minds of others, as without such, the singular narratives presented and accepted, absent alternative offerings becomes themselves the province of orthodoxy. This orthodoxy being itself is in turn, built shaky grounds as when detraction is finally and inevitably found, heard or thought of privately, the original orthodoxy will become the focus of abject scorn and ridicule, even if such is only rooted in the enthusiasm with which many may take to that which may appear rebellious or revolutionary.

It is for these reasons, among the plethora of more basic and obvious intellectual and moral or ethical causes, that the actors participating in censorship, be it by way of the blocking of speech entirely or merely the demeaning of detractors by way of spurious slanderous claims relating to their person, should be themselves viewed with nothing short of scorn and contempt by any who may think or may seek to think with open minds and rational processes of thought. For as has been demonstrated time and time again, the enthusiasm with which one or the groups to which they belong may take to totalitarian senses of narrative and debate, defy all social, political or ideological paradigms, short of those which hold true and objective reason as the higher virtues, as it is only through this cold objective rationality that real and valid truth may ever, in any sense, be realized.

We must not run or hide from criticism of dissent, as argument is itself, the very whetstone upon which our ideas may be sharpened or dulled. And should one wish to maintain the lopsided bluntness of an unrefined point or notion in such a fashion, they should be regarded as nothing less than cowardly and as nothing more than a strident and obnoxious fool.