I don't really think no one is allowed to say anything controversial anymore. Plenty of national newspapers are willing to give people front-page editorials to say things that are not mainstream. That's hardly a dark age.
Do you have some examples?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/07/nyt-opinion-bennet-...
Incited by "violence" (mostly property damage, some clashes with cops trying to box in and disperse non-violent protestors) - but calling for dispersal of everyone. Using the military to crush a civil rights movement
Please show me where he said peaceful protestors should have force used upon them.
The military isn't going to walk through the crowd picking out the few people smashing windows or throwing bottles. That would not be an OVERWHELMING SHOW OF FORCE. They would march on the crowds, and almost inevitably use lethal force on them. Even if the target is only the ones throwing bottles or smashing windows, the military cannot and would not make that distinction in the moment.
We don't have to imagine what it would be like, it's happened before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
Do you understand the difference between how you say something, and the ideas you are conveying? The thing he suggested was using military force on the people protesting.
Even setting aside that. Even if he did mean to magically only use military force on protestors who broke the law. There were a lot of protests happening peacefully, but after an 8pm curfew - those would have been lawbreakers... and also peaceful protestors. Should they have military force used on them because they broke a curfew? Tom Cotton appears to think so
https://www.wsj.com/articles/academic-freedom-is-withering-1...
depending on if you consider george will "mainstream"- he is an establishment conservative which certainly is a dissenting viewpoint at the washington post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/unprecedented-untarg...
not a newspaper, but a national magazine a front page article with a definitively non-mainstream message: https://harpers.org/archive/2020/04/good-guys-with-guns-soci...
Seems like a mainstream article. Not sure what the point of this was? I didn't look at the articles mentioned in this article so if that was your point then let me know so I can review them.
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/academic-freedom-is-withering-1...
I got a paywall so I could only read part of the article. The first part of the article seems to agree with my point that viewpoint discrimination is in fact happening. I didn't get to anything about newspapers before I got the paywall so I don't know what exact this had to do with what I posted. The article seemed quite mainstream to me though.
> depending on if you consider george will "mainstream"- he is an establishment conservative which certainly is a dissenting viewpoint at the washington post
I am getting a paywall so I couldn't read the article, but it seemed mainstream. Based on what I could gather it sounds like he supports a more fiscally responsible stimulus and to have it targeted to people who actually need it rather than to everybody. Assuming that is the gist of the article then I think that is decently mainstream. I would agree that it is a dissenting viewpoint for the Washington Post though.
>not a newspaper, but a national magazine a front page article with a definitively non-mainstream message
This article was pretty long so I skimmed it (so if I missed an important detail let me know). It sounds like a mainstream message. Gun ownership and protection of oneself with guns is a mainstream message in the US. Maybe it is a bit non-mainstream since the author is a socialist, but nothing stood out as out of the norm.
The last article is not mainstream at all. Gun ownership as a means of pushing a leftist agenda is extremely different from the somewhat mainstream, right-leaning ideas about gun ownership