I dont accept the premise that says "segregation was accepted ...

[Charlls]

.. by the majority to be good for the general welfare"

I think majority accepted things without questioning them, just as they do now. However, had the debate the chance to arouse in a ideal democratical climate, i assure you no significant majority would have thought "segregation was good" in any way.

Spiral of silence theory asserts that a silent majority can maintain open standpoints near the widely accepted standpoints to be accepted. Once debate arise in a conscious level, isolated bubbles of people that share similar standpoints that are countermainstream can overcome the fear threshold to support them openly

I think that "majority" that thought "segregation was good" was mostly silent acceptance of the imposed 'common sense'

I want to make this clear but is very widespread this as an argument that "people can be wrong most of the time". One most be very wary with these sentences, because can one easily derange outside true democracy following this line of thought

[Adams Wulff]

1. Is it me?

Or is that avatar clouding the gist of your post? (Yes, pun intended!)

[drdigi420]

2. well, if it was a beer or a crack pipe, id agree

but its pot, the most harmless of all recreational drugs

if more ppl toked unstead of drunking, the world would be a much better place

[Charlls]

3. did i lost you?