I think there's plenty worth talking about here. Like the opinion that the previous internet, where everyone could be rude and not worry about offending others,

I think there's plenty worth talking about here. Like the opinion that the previous internet, where everyone could be rude and not worry about offending others, was arguably better. I actually agree that the old internet was better. I'm not saying you shouldn't be banned from Twitter/X if you start using racist slurs online, but the way SJWs stalk people online is unacceptable, imo. Why is it bad? It gets to the question of why we censor people on platforms to begin with. Is it to affect the discussion as a whole or keep the platform pleasant? I'd say trying to influence the societal discussion by censoring people is a form of evil. We censor people (which is evil) because it is the lesser evil when their posts are disruptive. When you go SJW and stalk people, it shows your motive is not to protect the platform but to silence the target, which is imo an evil motive. Silencing bad speech is still evil because you appoint yourself as the decider of good and evil. Neither should the collective majority be the decider, as history is rife with examples where the collective majority was wrong. Thus I believe engaging in censorship is inherently evil, and must be justified by some other good so that censorship is the lesser evil. I also agree that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the values of open source and social justice. Open source software must be usable for any purpose, good or evil. The goal of open source is not "justice" but rather "freedom". We must be able to use software "for any purpose" and a key there is self-determination and non-interference. SJW tendencies do not get the whole "leave me alone and let me decide" idea that is at the core of open source.