Discursive optimism defended

This article defends the democratic ideal of inclusive public discourse, as articulated in Democratic Speech Divided Times, against critiques offered by Billingham, Fraser, and Hannon. Specifically, it considers responds to three core challenges. The first challenge argues, notably, that “shared reasons” constraint should either apply everywhere or not at all, that, if this is divided circumstances, its justificatory constituency must be idealized. second contends resistance hate speech misinformation counterspeech cannot adequately explained considerations salience, therefore countered (as I suggest) “positive” forms counterspeech. Finally, last objects discourse defend remains, pessimists allege, excessively idealistic.