It's not a problem if someone with a big audience advocates for and does not use rational arguments, as long as that thing is relatively harmless. (Let's say Bono advocates for peace, or a local group wants a new playground because it would warm their hearts. Or a group wants lower taxes, or a different group wants to tax the rich more. Even this last one, while advocates discrimination, it's not against a disadvantaged group, it's not judging something unchangeable like skin color, IQ, etc.)

Of course it's never good to allow bad arguments into the "marketplace of ideas", because then they'll take over the market, but unfortunately that ship has sailed, or likely never arrived.

> It's not a problem if someone with a big audience advocates for and does not use rational arguments, as long as that thing is relatively harmless. (Let's say Bono advocates for peace [..]

Q: Who gets to define "relatively harmless"?

"Advocating for peace" sounds pretty harmless, yet if you dare to mention any specifics - at least this year - it seems supporting it is deemed anything but harmless. Before my time, but seems the same applied in 1964 – 1973.

Descriptively history, normatively society through whatever mechanisms it comes up with. (Eg. in the US it's done through an "by default everything is allowed, and SCOTUS can make exceptions" mechanism.)

I don't think there's anything wrong with advocating for peace, from a free speech aspect, especially if someone is sincere. (Even if someone is completely brainwashed by whatever propaganda. And even if peace itself is a super meaningless term. After all wouldn't a totalitarian world government bring peace? Etc, etc.)

> Q: Who gets to define "relatively harmless"?

Each of us defines this for ourselves, using our own moral compass.

"GloboHomo" makes clear what your agenda is.