In an increasingly polarized public sphere, political choices are framed as binary, and the space for nuance shrinks. As the extremes grow louder, good faith voices are often pushed aside – not because they lack conviction, but because sincere examination of an issue no longer fits the format. In this context, the paradox of tolerance looms large: polarized voices pay lip service to “free expression” but abandon their commitments when asked to defend disfavored points of view. These sessions invite good-faith disagreement over pressing controversies, restoring our sense for the social benefits provided by free expression.
