Rotundus.com

I've been following some of the conversation started by an article by Jonathan Chaidt opposing political correctness from a relatively liberal perspective.

So far, the best argument as to why not to use coercion to suppress speech still came from (relatively conservative Catholic) Russ Douthat though:

The strongest answer, as I’ve tried to suggest before in debates about pluralism, has to rest in doubt as well as confidence: In a sense of humility about your own certainties, a knowledge that what looks like absolute progressive truth in one era does not always turn out to look that way in hindsight, and a willingness to extend a presumption of decency and good faith even to people whose ideas you think history will judge harshly. If you just say, “I believe in free debate because I’m certain than in free debate the good and right and true will eventually triumph, and I know that coercion will ultimately backfire,” you aren’t really giving the practical case for coercion its due. Better to say: “I believe in free debate because I know that my ideas about the good and right and true might actually be wrong (or at least be only partial truths that miss some bigger picture), and sometimes even reactionaries are proven right, and we have to leave the door open to that possibility.”
The problem with political correctness, in this sense, isn’t that it necessarily hurts the causes it claims to advance; sometimes it doesn’t, sometimes it just helps them win. It’s that like most systems of speech policing (which of course held sway in traditional societies as well) it excludes the possibility that those causes might be getting big things wrong, and thus it hurts the larger cause of truth.

Does this help the situation in the North or make it worse?

Caffeine might make you lazier

"[C]affeine might make us wired, but make it harder to keep our motivation of difficult tasks"

Poll: Most Americans Want to Criminalize Pre-Teens Playing Unsupervised

"While there are obviously many neighborhoods wrecked by crime where it makes more sense to keep kids close, the country at large is enjoying its lowest crime level in decades. Too bad most people reject this reality. The Reason/Rupe Poll asked "Do kids today face more threats to their physical safety?" and a majority—62 percent—said yes. Perhaps that's because the majority of respondents also said they don't think the media or political leaders are overhyping the threats to our kids."

In latest interview, Pope Francis reveals top 10 secrets to happiness

Not something I'd have expected from the pope: "9. Don't proselytize; respect others' beliefs. "We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyzes: 'I am talking with you in order to persuade you,' No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytizing," the pope said."

More inclusive KKK chapter makes some suspicious

I've got a sneaky suspicion that people belonging to certain racial groups might still be ever-so-slightly reluctant to join the Ku Klux Klan.

It's probably worth noting that this is more addressing the issue of what people are forced to study in school rather than the avoiding school per se. To quote:

I absolutely love a lot of the subjects I mention in this - astronomy, particle physics, pure maths... but I hate that everyone is forced to learn them. It should be a choice. There are a million other things wrong with education, but this one stood out as the most obvious and most insane.

I'm OK with at least a partial revamping but I think that at least some of what he's dismissive of might be worth retaining. To quote Edmund Burke:

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.

That at least partially addresses his comments on history but I'd respond to others in a fairly similar vein.