Two novels, offhand:

• The Fountainhead - Ayn Rand
• Hold Back This Day - Ward Kendall

What is the standard which is being used to evaluate inferiority vs. superiority? Inferior in regards to what? — Foghorn

Nothing exists in a vacuum, although many seem to believe that. In other words, anything can be objectively evaluated in regard to another thing. The old saying, "Oh, you're just trying to compare apples to oranges!" But stop and ask yourself: "Can apples and oranges be objectively compared?" The answer is yes. Here's one example of such a comparison: "Which has more Vitamin C?" Answer: the orange. Thus, an objective comparison was made and within that context the orange was superior. Here's another one: "I need to type a term paper. Which is superior, the orange or my desktop computer?" Answer: the desktop computer. So your question, "Inferior in regards to what?" means you understand that without context no proper evaluation can be made.

I support free speech. Not hate speech, but actual free open discussion to expand understanding of a topic. Disagreeing with the other posters greatly improves the discussion. If I only want my views, I need only find a mirror. — book273

"Hate speech" is a designation widely used as a means to silence someone whose views you do not like.

Example: Someone says that Mexico has dangerous criminal cartels and the immediate response is, "Well, you obviously hate Mexicans," as a means to invalidate the fact that Mexico does indeed have dangerous cartels.

Now, granted, such a person may well "hate Mexicans" but dismissing the fact that there are dangerous cartels in Mexico based on that is akin to dismissing 2 + 2 = 4 as being true simply because the person who says it hates you. In other words, "hate speech" has become the go-to "accusation" of many people today as a means to "win" an argument. Therefore, I'm not sure what you mean by "hate speech".

"I support that we should be able to question whatever we feel will result in a decent conversation/discussion, however, as I have had threads deleted due to the question I was asking, clearly there are topics that are not supported." — Book273

I agree. In fact, I know of no place on the Internet that permits free speech (as commonly defined) because many people fear the truth if it threatens to topple their long-held beliefs. And this is true with both the Left and the Right, as well as all who lie in between.

These claims regarding Thomas Jefferson & Sally Hemings were well-known during his lifetime and although they were used as a bludgeon against him by both personal enemies and political rivals, he made no attempt (that I know of) to silence these individuals. That said, a desire to want "truth known" does not imply that the world at large has a right to know one's bathroom habits or bedroom activities, for instance, nor the combination to one’s safe. Nor does belief in it means you give carte blanche to every Tom, Dick, & Harry to question you about the personal details of your life. It simply means that there are no universal truths that should not be known by all, even if some of those truths do not reflect well on others.

My view is best reflected in the quote below, but it is apparently not shared by many on here:

“There is not a truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world.” — Thomas Jefferson

I doubt Trump will be reinstated. Nevertheless, he would be an improvement over Biden were that to happen.