Surprisingly and frustratingly, very few people truly uphold pluralistic/classical liberalism, especially among the highly educated elite. They may emotionally agree with certain viewpoints, but they easily succumb to making demands, such as banning/restricting things that don't concern them, justifying it with some arbitrary higher principle or double standards. Once the situation reverses and they gain power, they exhibit the same primitive behavior as those they once accused of wrongdoing. Identity politics is evil until your identity ultimately triumphs. Discrimination based on political ideology is evil until your ideology gains power. Freedom of speech is good until it is abused by outgroups. Academic fraud is bad unless it benefits me and somehow promotes what I like. Trade is good unless people are trading what I don't like. The voices of the illiberal are also louder: those who think, "I'm disgusted by this, but it's not something I should ban," don't write commentaries, don't launch campaigns, and don't gain widespread attention. Principled tolerance is inherently quiet, and I can't help but wonder what changes we need to make to ensure that principled adherence to norms and the maximization of freedom are more strongly rewarded by institutions and society. It's also quite ridiculous that for some, democracy simply means majority rule. They point to a large group wanting to do something, and that's enough to prove it's "democratic." If a group can suppress any diversity, dissent, and difference simply because it's large, it's an absurd and terrifying system. The tyranny of the majority should still instill fear in you, and your political principles should not be easily changed when convenient.