*circa any point in human history prior to 2018 A.D.* A: I dare say, these degenerate minorities are giving us a case of the troubles! B: I hear your opinion, and I understand where it comes from, but I respectfully choose to agree to disagree. *elegantly clinks together tea cups whilst tipping each own's fedora* You know, civil liberties and civil rights used to be about protection from the State. Free Speech/expression, the right to assembly, freedom of religion and so on, are all to do with protection against state power. At some point the meaning shifted to protection
by the State. For hundreds of years the greatest threat to freedom was seen as State power. Since that shift, you now have the problem where it is increasingly expected of the state to protect certain rights. I'm sure it can be argued some good came of that. However, we're now in the situation where the very notion of civil rights means the state intervenes to police thoughts, speech, and behaviour. There is something Orwellian about it, and it is understandable why there are people uneasy about it. Historically speaking, too much State power has never really been a good thing. And the pendulum can too easily swing in the other direction, only now with greater power to police thought and behaviour.
I remember a speech Rowan Atkinson made 5 years ago.
VIDEO It is not so much the speech(although I totally agree with it) that comes to mind, rather the top comment.
This was five years ago. Look around at the state of society today, and it is absolutely clear that every word Atkinson said here fell upon totally deaf ears. So now we're debating whether 'misogyny', this vague term, should be considered a 'hate crime'.