I Found the Answer in a 2015 Atlantic Article! The answer to what, you ask? Well, I don't know about you, my fellow Patriotic Thinkers...but I am damned sick and tired of the whiny-assed snot-nosed snowflakes who need a "safe space" to hide when confronted with an idea which forces them to THINK for themselves.  I am also fed-up with the ever so "tolerant" liberals who are becoming increasingly violent towards those of us who actually THINK for ourselves and who DARE exercise our 1st Amendment Rights  by expressing our Conservative  or (Alternative) ideas publicly. I have and will always stand up for my beliefs no matter what happens.  I have that right as an American Citizen, as do ALL Americans whether I agree with their opinions/beliefs or not. Over the years, my political ideologies have moved quite a bit further to the right, (I believe that is what is known as "Wisdom"?)  I have not grown any less outspoken about my beliefs and/or opinions. Having never been one who "sugar-coats" my words,  I have (more than once) been assaulted (both physically and verbally) for participating publicly in a conversation with folks who were of a different mindset than mine. I learned at a young age (thankfully) HOW to think. I love a good heated debate in which I am forced to defend my beliefs with facts and/or evidence to back it up.   I always listen to others' as they present their side, keeping my mind open and thoughtfully hearing their words-thinking about what they have said before forming an answer to counter them.  Every once in a while, what they have to say is actually relevant which requires me to reevaluate my reasoning and at times agree with them. (yikes)... The era of participating in public debates (with people who have a diverse group of ideas/thoughts/opinions) has long past (as you well know) and we have moved into an era where we (critical thinkers) are demonized for our horrible behavior! (thinking for ourselves and DARING to express our point of view publicly). I came across an old Atlantic Magazine article from 2015 which was really well written and contained FACTS, included reputable references to verifiable sources and actually provided me with a great deal of useful information about the issues I have outlined above. Below I have copied and pasted a few paragraphs which I found to be interesting.  **I could not provide the link to the main article b/c it is a banned domain according to the mods.  * "The Coddling of the American Mind" By Greg Lukianoff, Jonathan Haidt  August 11, 2015  The Atlantic "In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.   "What Can We Do Now? Attempts to shield students from words, ideas, and people that might cause them emotional discomfort are bad for the students. They are bad for the workplace, which will be mired in unending litigation if student expectations of safety are carried forward. And they are bad for American democracy, which is already paralyzed by worsening partisanship. When the ideas, values, and speech of the other side are seen not just as wrong but as willfully aggressive toward innocent victims, it is hard to imagine the kind of mutual respect, negotiation, and compromise that are needed to make politics a positive-sum game. Rather than trying to protect students from words and ideas that they will inevitably encounter, colleges should do all they can to equip students to thrive in a world full of words and ideas that they cannot control. One of the great truths taught by Buddhism (and Stoicism, Hinduism, and many other traditions) is that you can never achieve happiness by making the world conform to your desires. But you can master your desires and habits of thought. This, of course, is the goal of cognitive behavioral therapy. With this in mind, here are some steps that might help reverse the tide of bad thinking on campus. The biggest single step in the right direction does not involve faculty or university administrators, but rather the federal government, which should release universities from their fear of unreasonable investigation and sanctions by the Department of Education. Congress should define peer-on-peer harassment according to the Supreme Court’s definition in the 1999 case Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education. The Davis standard holds that a single comment or thoughtless remark by a student does not equal harassment; harassment requires a pattern of objectively offensive behavior by one student that interferes with another student’s access to education. Establishing the Davis standard would help eliminate universities’ impulse to police their students’ speech so carefully. Universities themselves should try to raise consciousness about the need to balance freedom of speech with the need to make all students feel welcome. Talking openly about such conflicting but important values is just the sort of challenging exercise that any diverse but tolerant community must learn to do. Restrictive speech codes should be abandoned. Universities should also officially and strongly discourage trigger warnings. They should endorse the American Association of University Professors’ report on these warnings, which notes, “The presumption that students need to be protected rather than challenged in a classroom is at once infantilizing and anti-intellectual.” Professors should be free to use trigger warnings if they choose to do so, but by explicitly discouraging the practice, universities would help fortify the faculty against student requests for such warnings. Finally, universities should rethink the skills and values they most want to impart to their incoming students. At present, many freshman-orientation programs try to raise student sensitivity to a nearly impossible level. Teaching students to avoid giving unintentional offense is a worthy goal, especially when the students come from many different cultural backgrounds. But students should also be taught how to live in a world full of potential offenses. Why not teach incoming students how to practice cognitive behavioral therapy? Given high and rising rates of mental illness, this simple step would be among the most humane and supportive things a university could do. The cost and time commitment could be kept low: a few group training sessions could be supplemented by Web sites or apps. But the outcome could pay dividends in many ways. For example, a shared vocabulary about reasoning, common distortions, and the appropriate use of evidence to draw conclusions would facilitate critical thinking and real debate. It would also tone down the perpetual state of outrage that seems to engulf some colleges these days, allowing students’ minds to open more widely to new ideas and new people. A greater commitment to formal, public debate on campus—and to the assembly of a more politically diverse faculty—would further serve that goal. Thomas Jefferson, upon founding the University of Virginia, said: We believe that this is still—and will always be—the best attitude for American universities. Faculty, administrators, students, and the federal government all have a role to play in restoring universities to their historic mission."