Different people have different views on different topics. Within the text “In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected” by Jonathan Rauch, people’s opinions on certain topics caused controversial talks. The author Jonathan Rauch wrote this article extremely well, first explaining intellectual pluralism and purism means then by using examples from personal experiences and different parts of society to make his point that by using, second intellectual pluralism rather than, third purism, will overall better society. People should have the freedom to make verbal mistakes and be corrected, intellectual pluralism, rather than having selective groups determining the necessity of censoring certain content, purism.
Without…show more content… From this quote the speaker also explains part of the quote which say that an individual should question what others say and speak out about it if they disagree. In another case, Rauch created a new word for anti-pluralism which is purism which states “society cannot be just until the last traces of invidious prejudice have been scrubbed away” (Rauch). This means that in order for society to be better we have to ban certain words or phrases in order to rid of all hostility. With Purism, only certain will be censored. While understanding the meaning of the words helps one understand the word, seeing examples helps one see that intellectual pluralism is better than purism.
People should be able to express themselves whether they are right or wrong. If what they say is right or wrong then there are others out there who will help correct them. History has shown that mistakes happened and were corrected as illustrated by different part of society in the quote “Against the power of ignorant mass opinion and group prejudice and superstition, we have only our voices. If you doubt that minorities' voices are powerful weapons, think of the lengths to which Southern officials went to silence the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.” (Rauch). The desire for equality by
