You do — and you know you do, when the opinion is sufficiently controversial. I understand you present that open-minded veneer, but you happily violate it by ca

You do — and you know you do, when the opinion is sufficiently controversial. I understand you present that open-minded veneer, but you happily violate it by calling opinions a flamewar or similar slight, then censoring for ideological non-conformity. You’re also being insincere by saying “we only do for violating the guidelines!” when “Eschew flamebait” is a guideline — and my accusation is that amounts to you censoring based on your (and the community’s) political biases. You’re dishonestly pretending I’m not discussing the biased way in which you apply that particular guideline — and intentionally ignoring my reference to “flame bait”/“flame war” in doing so. We’ve had this discussion before and I’m not interested in hunting down comments from over four years ago.