For example, if you're teaching your kids that sitting in class instead of walking out over gun control is the right thing to do, you might think that makes sense. Why protest for something that you don't believe in? But you're probably hurting their chances at being socially accepted, and there's a good chance the other kids will think your kid is likely to be the next school shooter simply by their lack of protesting. Sitting out is now more dramatic than joining the protesting already in progress.
If you teach them that questioning the sentiment of the day is healthy, they're going to end up being identified as sexist, or racist, or a likely shooter, or whatever acceptable slur would describe the most perverse interpretation of their belief. I'm pretty sure Damore's intentions were good, but do you think his questioning of diversity initiatives was helpful to his career or his social life?
The way these movements are shaping up, you can't be neutral. If you're not part of the perceived solution, you're part of the perceived problem, and you're going to be treated as a problem. But if you fall in line with the mob, you'll have more opportunities for advancement, networking, and community support.
edit: Btw, I upvoted all of your comments. But you'll notice my suggestions for censorship are being upvoted while your cautionary tale about freedom is not... HN is illustrating my point for me.