If you don't allow explicitly harmful or intolerant content like slurs or calls to genocide, who decides what is "intolerant"? If you allow only some opinions but restrict others you turn a community into an echo chamber that pretends to have free speech, which is worse than having no free speech at all.
I think an echo chamber where everyone agrees that slurs and calls to genocide are bad is an echo chamber I'm fine with. We can argue the other stuff, but some things seem pretty cut and dry to me.
So...
You said it was a bastion of free speech and not an echo chamber because you can say that stuff...
Then you said they dont let you say that stuff...
And now you're saying you can say that stuff there again...
I didn't expect a lot of logic, but you're literally switching between two opposites in every single comment in this thread
If you don't allow explicitly harmful or intolerant content like slurs or calls to genocide, who decides what is "intolerant"? If you allow only some opinions but restrict others you turn a community into an echo chamber that pretends to have free speech, which is worse than having no free speech at all.
I think an echo chamber where everyone agrees that slurs and calls to genocide are bad is an echo chamber I'm fine with. We can argue the other stuff, but some things seem pretty cut and dry to me.
So...
You said it was a bastion of free speech and not an echo chamber because you can say that stuff...
Then you said they dont let you say that stuff...
And now you're saying you can say that stuff there again...
I didn't expect a lot of logic, but you're literally switching between two opposites in every single comment in this thread