First off, pretending I'm putting words in your mouth is hilarious. I have done nothing but respond to the actual things you've said without rephrasing them in any way. You are the only one here who has deliberately rephrased things I've said in your own words to argue against something that wasn't even said. You are the one arguing in bad faith, not me.
Secondly: The censors gaining power isn't a consequence of that, and I've already explained why. Come up with something new. Your argument is circular at this point.
Third: "That is not for you to decide." Buddy, I'm not deciding anything. You've yet to make a statement of actual substance on the matter beyond "This is how it works" and "This is what happens" assertions with no backup beyond a singular example that doesn't even fit the metrics for tolerance. I don't need to 'decide' you had nothing to say, your posts make that clear on their own.
Fourth: "I get people I target to leave or respond in kind, repeat until your oh so tolerant site is wasteland or toxic dump." You're allowed to be rude and they're allowed to be rude to you. People 'left' because it was one sided, primarily. Because they couldn't fire back, or push back. Freedom of expression is more important than being comfortable all of the time. You can't create an echo chamber in a place where the right to mock people in that echo chamber exists. You are equating two completely different things again.
Furthermore: targeting people is only acceptable until it breaches into harassment, which is already against site policy on these places. With that protection in place, you can expect to be banned if you target every individual who disagrees with you until they leave. If people can't take mockery, they shouldn't be online. If you commit targeted group harassment of an individual, you should be banned. It's that simple.
"You're literally handing over the keys with the kind of rules you propose." You aren't 'handing over the keys' by being tolerant. You've yet to say anything of substance that isn't "This leads to you doing more than just being tolerant" which, by definition, reaches beyond what I'm suggesting. As long as you maintain control over the rules and continue to allow freedom of expression, then you haven't handed the keys to anyone.
"People who are insulted enough will leave instead of insulting back." This goes both ways too, you know. Insults are commonplace on the internet, curating for them is just asking to fail. People have a right to voice their opinions, even the not so nice ones, about other people too. It's not a big deal until it turns into targeted harassment, which is above and beyond the scope of voicing an opinion.
Unless you have something of actual substance or note to say in your next reply, this will be the last time I respond to you with something other than "Got an argument yet? No? Okay."
Also, by the way? "Asymmetry works both ways." is the most hilarious statement I've ever heard. Psst: If it's going both ways, it's not asymmetrical. It's symmetrical. Anonymous #5F71
"I suppose that the ideal middle ground would be giving everyone a fair chance to fit in regardless of their beliefs, and if they abuse it to cause trouble, just throw the book at them without making any exceptions."
Nobody, not even me, is arguing that you don't throw the book at them if they break the rules, but you also don't write rules that ban subjects of conversation or target one side of arguments and you don't disallow anyone to talk about anything for any reason within the rules. That is the only way you can claim to be for free expression, in any measure. @Anonymous #1325
What I'm talking about is how our little group here got its start. It worked fine, despite the slings and arrows of every single other group raining down on us, we held firm together. This is how the pony community was formed, back in the day. Our first stance ever was for freedom of expression and it's a stance we should hold to this day. It worked. Regardless of what anyone says it worked, if it hadn't, we wouldn't be
here. You don't NEED to curb conversation, or others coming by and deriding you, or your own right to say 'fuck you buddy' right back in order to have civil, friendly group discussion. Anything else is just faff that gets in the way of the right of expression. @Anonymous #A99E
What's being suggested is: "I know the trojan horse is a decoy, so let's let them build and deliver it and laugh at them the whole time. We already know not to let them into the city, we don't need to stop them from building the horse."