Are you somehow committed to the idea that it's not useful or morally valid to debate about whether those ideas are right or wrong? From your discussion of the Chinese political speech issues, it seems like you actually think that -- if there were a way to enforce that -- I should not be able to try to persuade people that you're mistaken, because that's just how transparently evil my anticommunism is, or because people don't actually possess a faculty of reason, or something.
> Are you somehow committed to the idea that it's not useful or morally valid to debate about whether those ideas are right or wrong?
Well, it really isn't.
At the end of the day, ideologies are just fronts for material interests. You argue for your material interests, and they might be at odds with the material interests of the masses.
If a revolutionary movement wants to achieve its goals, it must take care that such deviations don't take root, especially if they use naïve liberal humanism and appeals to human emotion as Trojan horses.
Honestly, this applies to movements in general. You can see this in the USA. Trump's dictatorship was nurtured and empowered by naïve liberal humanist moderates who thought they could debate and 'when they go low, we go high' their way into power and stability.
Decry censorship and ideological rigidity all you want, your enemies won't think twice about using everything in their power to crush you.
