[mcdonje]

I was with you until your 3rd paragraph. Why are you carrying water for climate change accelerationists and racists?

The examples don't even make sense historically. Haven't you noticed that most governments are failing to decarbonize, and government force against citizens is usually against the left?

[Y_Y]

You don't have to be a racist to be accused of racism.

[sofixa]

"said something racist" is what OP said

[pessimizer]

Because in a free country you have the right to be a climate skeptic and a racist?

Being a racist is mostly useless and self-serving, but if you make any particular scientific position illegal, it's identical to having state defined science. That's how we got people passing bills to define pi and Lysenkoism. It's how we institutionalized chattel slavery and sometimes teaching black people to read punishable by death.

The goal of government isn't to promote your "correct" opinions. The goal of government should be summarize the beliefs of a fully-informed public in order to act on their behalf.

[jay_kyburz]

>The goal of government should be summarize the beliefs of a fully-informed public in order to act on their behalf.

I fully agree with your position here, but do you think the government has a roll in making sure the public is not misled or believes things that "experts" consider to be false? Do you think expert opinions should carry more weight that the average Joe?

I think my position is that the government is a tool we, the taxpayer, should use to investigate things and educate us of its findings. That this should be done in an open and transparent way so that we can trust the results. I don't think for profit companies should responsible for educating people. (sorry for the tangent)

[mcdonje]

You're kinda missing the point. It's quite common for "free speech absolutists" to defend racism and other forms of bigotry, but not much else.