At any rate, I agree with Sam. We are not fragile. We are resilient. Countless generations before us have demonstrated as much. You don't disarm ignorant ideas by banning them, you expose them to reason.

Which part do you agree with? Because most of this article is a poorly reasoned, overdone freeze peaches argument.

I agree with him that in a debate, all ideas should be discussable. But that's not his argument, his argument is that people can have horrible, destructive and oppressive beliefs and that those need to be tolerated because the people having them are smart. "I feel oppressed because I get flak for having or supporting oppressive and hateful ideas."

You can’t tell which seemingly wacky ideas are going to turn out to be right, and nearly all ideas that turn out to be great breakthroughs start out sounding like terrible ideas

This is true, but there is a really big difference between 'wacky idea' and 'damaging, oppressive idea' that he completely conflates. One is a bit weird and the other is damaging. Is slavery a "wacky idea"?