Generally if something is going to affect my life in a structural way, I want to have a say in that something. So if a group’s primary aim is political activism, then I am less inclined to favor special protections for the discussions of said group.

Of course, determining the intent of a group is not easy, and not all that is potentially dangerous is going to materialize into a real danger, so dealing with a lot of false positives can be counterproductive too.

If in doubt, I lean toward freedom of speech (and thought, and conscience).

Like many people, I don’t want to live in a toxic society, but trying to discipline and control every little thing can in and of itself become toxic and oppressive.

Every rhetorical or conceptual device we use to protect the vulnerable can be (and already has been) hijacked and weaponized against our own interests. So for example, the corporate interests use weaponized identity politics when they deliberately select minority talking heads to promote the views of the exploiter class to the masses. Every good thing we have developed has also been used in evil ways. Promoting morality generally makes people behave better but it also makes people more (intellectually and emotionally) exploitable by those who cynically weaponize morality for private gain.

So the more we make ourselves sensitive to abuse, the more effective the weaponized forms of “sensitivity” will also become.

I don’t see any obvious or easy solutions to any of these problems. It all seems like a balancing act to me.