I approach stuff like this from a position of cognitive liberty. People are free and will think and feel whatever it is that they think and feel. Those thoughts

I approach stuff like this from a position of cognitive liberty. People are free and will think and feel whatever it is that they think and feel. Those thoughts and feelings inform their decisions and thus their behavior, and the behavior is what we ought to care about. Speech is a type of behavior and we ought to care about it because it influences culture and politics and everything else that arises from acts of communication. I make one assumption, which I think is well founded (based on utility), which is that it is impossible to persuade people through direct confrontation. Effective persuasion is based on presentation of facts and ideas to those who are receptive to them, but nobody ever became receptive by being confronted directly, and that can be counter-productive. It can make a potentially receptive person become closed to persuasion. They will, in essence, deny facts (even to the point of rejecting empirical proof) and go entirely with mood affiliation and tribal loyalty. When trying to do political communication of any kind the decision becomes a decision between trying to persuade someone or trying to "other" them and therefore signal to your in-group that they are an enemy. American political communication has really stopped trying to persuade anyone of anything and is now focused entirely on "othering". When I read your initial comment it came across as "othering". You spent a lot of words telling someone that their interpretations were wrong, that they should think and feel differently than they expressed thinking and feeling, and that their disagreement with your position was fundamentally unreasonable. The premise of cognitive liberty is an assertion that our own thoughts and feelings are just that: our own. They may or not be rational or reasonable or even useful. They might indeed be bad ideas, that do more harm than good. Still, we are free creatures, and we are free to have those thoughts and being criticized on the grounds of what you think is an untenable argument to make because it denies that fundamental freedom. All of this is just a long-winded way of trying to motivate my next sentences. Disagreement is natural and unavoidable and I believe it is beneficial to tolerate it in most circumstances. Othering and/or thought-policing those who disagree with us is actively harmful, and we've seen the consequences (his name is Donald). The tacit assumption that "my worldview is the best one and my morals are unassailable and those who disagree with me are irrational and/or immoral" is a serious problem. I've seen worse examples of it than your post, but your post was an example of it.