In law school they are supposed to be able to argue both sides. Can you imagine a trial in front of a judge by Stanford lawyer grads that believe this silencing approach? Just wait until reality hits them in the face with the judge fining the lawyer for trying to shout over the judge or witnesses to stop their speech.
From the article:
"A chilling poll was released by 2021 College Free Speech Rankings after questioning a huge body of 37,000 students at 159 top-ranked U.S. colleges and universities. It found that sixty-six percent of college students think shouting down a speaker to stop them from speaking is a legitimate form of free speech. Another 23 percent believe violence can be used to cancel a speech. That is roughly one out of four supporting violence.
They are getting these values from faculty members. Many schools have largely purged their ranks of conservative and libertarian faculty. "
In many people's mind there are no paradoxes because they simply believe the last talking point they hear. Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person uses reasoning to dispute the latest talking point.
For example, men can become women. For us here, this is a paradox. But a millennial fully accepts this idea. Later, if the media issues different talking points that say there's no such thing as women at all and there is no gender. This will be true, in their minds, again, no paradox because the last talking point won't exist. If you point this out, they will get cognitive dissonance.
(post is archived)