What harm, what kind of harm, is done by the kind of superficial and merely-verbal denial of the Good - denials of truth, beauty and virtue; denials of the reality of reality - which are now mainstream and increasingly mandatory in public discourse?
(I refer to the officially-sanctioned inversions of especially morality, but also truth and beauty, which are now compulsory. A person or institution that refuses actively and positively to support, indeed to show-enthusiasm-for, the progressive Leftist agenda of inversion is now punished harshly and the trend is for more and more-severe punishments.)
So a person, a committee, an organisation articulates denial of Good and proposes the desirability of the unreal, untrue, wicked, ugly - what happens at the ultimate level of God's plan of salvation and theosis?
My suggestion is that their main harm of this stuff is to block spiritual progress.
Such denials don't necessary damn us - because we can, as private souls, snap out of them in a moment - and it seems likely that this will usually occur after death when we are confronted by the truth or reality.
But such denials probably block us in theosis - block us in the main business of life (after salvation is secured) which is to become more like Jesus Christ, more like God, more divine.
The result is that - even when he is saved - modern man is, in the mass, at an extraordinarily low spiritual level, at an extremely undeveloped stage of sanctification.
In the past there were Good men of great spiritual stature; equally there were wicked men who were spiritually-advanced; that is, there were god-like geniuses of good and evil - the evil being those men who developed far towards divinity then changed sides.
Nowadays mediocrity is the normal and almost exclusive rule: mediocrity of the saved and the damned alike - there is a great and infinitely-important gulf between them in fate, in decision; but as individuals there is not much to choose.
In modern conditions, the saved are not very Good, the damned are not very evil.