It doesn't take any moral equivocations at all. Immanuel Kant points it out as one of 3 moral principles that are always true, regardless of conditions. [1]

Once you accept a moral system that justifies no longer treating human beings as people, you've allowed yourself a system that can justify anything. Look at every genocide of the past century; they all start with classifying a group of people as sub-human and worthy of discrimination.

That is a view to be fought, not descended to.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#The_Sec...

> Look at every genocide of the past century; they all start with classifying a group of people as sub-human and worthy of discrimination.

Seems like those 'other' groups were generally defined by biological characteristics, not ideologies, no? I guess the 'anti-communist' movement would fall under ideology, not biology, but the majority of examples I can think of that you're alluding to have to do with biology, no?

The "cultural revolution" and Cambodia's "Year Zero" were explicitly ideological.

The Cambodian genocide had a definite ideological side, as well as the repression of Kulaks [1]. I'm not sure why it's not traditionally listed as a genocide since it's effects would squarely place it somewhere in the top 5.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization

> biological characteristics, not ideologies, no?

No. "Jewish" isn't biological, although there is some correlation, and America's red scare was soundly ideological.

"I guess the 'anti-communist' movement would fall under ideology"

I would think that's your 'red scare' unless you're talking about something else.

The "jewish" one - thinking specifically of ww2 - it definitely was more of a biological component, as "how much" you were jewish, and from what lineage, made a difference. "jewish" is both cultural and may have a racial/biological component (imu).

> Once you accept a moral system that justifies [slippery slope]

Quick question: does anyone defending the racists, sexists, homophobes, etc., have any other argument than "SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!"?

It's actually even worse than you say... It's not just that failing to acknowledge hate allows racist threats to fester. Failing to acknowledge hate allows outside groups -- whether other countries or the very wealthy -- to inflame hate to achieve their quite different goals (weaken liberal democracy, tax cuts for themselves).

And acknowledging hate apparently allows the haters to become POTUS, and subsequently "weaken liberal democracy, tax cuts for themselves". You have to admit, that skews the calculation somewhat.

I’d argue the danger of shutting down conversations you don’t agree with is much worse in the long run.

How do you formalize such acknowledgements? Majority vote? Appointed thought leaders?