It's like the moment you try to have a conversation about some serious topic, you feel like you are receiving youtube comments in person.
Only recently, I realized this requirement for PC is why most social talking in the US tend to be about sport (NFL, NHL, NBA), TV (Game of Thrones or some reality shows) or podcasts.
Dare to speak about a social issue or challenge a solution that's supposed to be addressing the issue, you'll be at the receiving end of a verbal lynch mob.
If you hear only Modi idolization, it can be boring. But if it is critiques of his policies (good/bad) you may feel it's a paradigm shift in progress in the worlds largest democracy.
Nothing wrong in you finding it boring.
Not to be adversarial, but this isn't true. Some positive rights, like contract enforcement, are implied/expressed in the US Constitution. Other positive rights (the right to public education, for example) are varyingly guaranteed by individual states in the union, in their constitutions and otherwise.
There is zero difference in practice. If I'm fired and can't come to work anymore, the discussion has been stopped, no? Happy to be corrected if I'm missing something.
I am? I never claimed any such thing.
My question is clear, no? Is there any practical difference between employers (supposedly) not being able to restrict your speech at work, but being able to fire you for whatever they want?
If you put two opposite extremists of moderate intelligence together to talk, you will probably not hear a great conversation. (This is not only true for politics.)
While americans are free to utter quite inflamatory speech in the public, I find that American culture seems to discourage any sort of controversial topic in polite company.
That applies to conservatives and liberals alike in the US. Discussing religion among conservatives in the US seems taboo. While liberals are not very open to having PC opinions challenged.