The idea killers 

Much in the news these days is that ESPN's Jemele Hill tweeted nastily (and utterly without evidentiary foundation) that the President of the United States and supporters surrounding him are "white supremacists." 

To their rank discredit, ESPN executives have basically indulged liberal racial-bomb thrower Hill, whereas they have not given similar velvety exemptions to more conservative employees. http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/09/974177-espn-fired-curt-schilling-tweet-now-savage-response-espn-double-standard/ 

Hill was recently interviewed by Bryan Curtis, for the remarkably benign profile of her he filed for The Ringer. Curtis did not explore Hill's contemptible slurring of ideological adversaries. (It would be foolish to expect a reverent fan to maintain critical distance.) 

"There's a certain crop of people who's [sic] not trying to see ESPN get more ethnic, more gender-balanced," Hill claimed. "As a discredit to all of us, they use words like 'too liberal' or 'politically correct.'...Whenever I hear that, I'm like, I know what you really want to call me."
(https://www.theringer.com/2017/9/13/16299136/jemele-hill-espn-michael-smith-sportscenter-the-six)

Hill did not explain how she came to possess the super-power required for seeing into others' minds and hearts, to "know what you really want to call me." 

As a piece by The Federalist's Ben Domenech pointed out: "When everything's a hate group, dialogue becomes impossible."

While worthy of denouncement in its own right, Hill's tweet also represents a trend toward stifling contrary opinions by cynically heaving socially damning epithets. The hoped-for eventuality seems to be silent and chastened retreat by any and all who disagree even by scant degrees with The One Truth.

Intelligent adults of serious intent articulate ideas, and engage fellow citizens in reasoned and respectful debate. Contrasting ideas with one another can result in general benefit. But, in a world where dissent is ground beneath smiley-faced boot heels, there is no intellectual liberty, no latitude for individual expression.

Examples arose during the 2016 campaign. Remember that organized champions of the Hillary Clinton effort circulated among reporters a list of 'taboo' descriptors that were never to be used to describe the Democrat candidate. 

("We will be watching, reading, listening, and protesting coded sexism..." threatened a missive dispatched to the New York Times' Amy Chozick. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/26/the-13-words-you-cant-write-about-hillary-clinton-anymore/?utm_term=.c2c3b2bf4c72)

Another illustration that appeared last year was the push in some precincts to cast "thug" as necessarily a euphemism for the n-word. All who derided rioters as "thugs" were summarily tossed out of 
polite conversation.

All of these were of a part with burgeoning, broader hostility toward free speech and independent thought. Zealous efforts were choreographed to stifle dissenting voices through codes, laws, threats of job loss, online pressures, and mass economic boycotts. 

Controlling popular political discourse would be prized by any totalitarian. No citizens could then speak in opposition, or mount an effective challenge to existing clampdown authority. 

That public-in-chains ugliness would be directly opposite America's Constitutional, democratic ideal. One suspects that wouldn't bother Jemele Hill and ESPN's corner-office suits in the least.