I don't have to tolerate speech from people who threaten my life or community. And I don't mean 'threaten' in the sense of holding an opinion I find disagreeable, I mean threaten as in making straightforward threats to life. That speech does not have to be tolerated.
I don't have to tolerate speech from people who threaten my life or community. And I don't mean 'threaten' in the sense of holding an opinion I find disagreeable
Then you should understand that when "threatening speech" is used to censor people on false pretexts, then this dilutes reasonable concerns about threatening speech. If one is really concerned about truly threatening speech, one should be actively calling out such abuses from one's own side. Also, what naturally goes with that, is the calling out of actual violence from one's own side.
This is also why civility is useful for the public discourse. It acts as a sort of "DMZ" wherein actual hostility is more readily visible. (And certain people on all sides of the public discourse should be called out in this regard.)
Perhaps you should have written your initial interjection with the same precision you now seek to apply. Since it was written in English, I invite you to reflect on how it might be received by the unwary reader.
It's not my fault you wrote your message out the way you did, although you have subsequently edited it. You are worried about some future pretextual censorship whose existence you presume, I am worried about actually existing threats made in the recent past and present.
Or to put it in very simplistic terms so that there is no misunderstanding, I am more worried about people who want to promote or engage in genocidal behavior than I am about missing out on possible future contributions to society from genocide enthusiasts who had difficulty reaching a sufficiently wide audience.
