Sure. But I doubt she'll do that ever again, as she said she regretted taking that tactic of counter-trolling.

It's against the law in Europe to tweet that you hate someone because of skin color?  That was your example.

Tolerance does not include intolerance. The same as the freedom to live does not include the freedom to get killed. Absolute tolerance and absolute freedom work as great as as an absolute free market.

You gotta have rules, man.

It’s a complicated issue. I believe it should be illegal to invade and exploit other countries resources. What white people did to native Americans, Africans, Palestinians, and on and on is reprehensible. What the Jews did to the Germans and vice a versa is truly an obvious example of powerful groups preying on differences with full legal support.

Having an opinion is fine. Expressing it is fine too. Legally invading countries for oil and poppy fields is not fine. Installing puppet governments in South America who borrow from the world bank at outrageous interest only to forfeit all resources is not fine. Support for dictators who kidnap and murder suspects is not fine.

What is fine is feeling best around your own race. It’s ok for a person to say they would rather have predominantly friends who match their own ethnicity. As long as they don’t use their solidarity and unity to exploit those who are being divided by diversity. Should a group be able to walk around like the kkk shouting violent slurs? Fuck no. They should get greifed. But should and an individual be able to say they are uncomfortable around cultures they don’t fit into and attract only those that they do? Yes it’s their liberty.

First things first - something being objectively wrong is a non-starter. Maybe you're religious and you embrace divine command theory, or perhaps you're just fundamentally ignorant on the topic. Either way, the metaethical framework matters, and you're not going to find some universal agreement on moral oughts. I'm not even convinced moral realism is true, let alone a particular deontological or consequentialist approach is tenable.

Secondly, if someone is racist what purpose does it serve to censor them? They are still a racist and saying the same things you find objectionable behind closed doors. Out of sight, out of mind mentality?

I absolutely believe in our country's 100% free speech policy. To suggest otherwise is not only wrong IMO, it's actually dangerous and sets a horribly dangerous precedent. Who gets to decide what speech is acceptable?This leads to a MASSIVE gap in power, which, unchecked, can lead to oppressive governments.

To criminalize speech would essentially be the epitome of intolerance, would it not? Obviously there are horrible, mean-spirited ideas, but I completely believe in the free market of ideas to let people come to their own conclusions, and let the market play out organically, much like in capitalism. Natrually, the horrible ideas will sink to the bottom while the great, highly supported ideas will rise to the top.

The ONLY exceptions shuold be direct threats to a person or their safety (ie crying bomb on a airplane or threatening to kill somebody).

It's also funny how you mention Nazis - even though putting restrictions on free speech is actually quite a Fascist/Nazi attribute, is it not?

That sounds like you're projecting your ideology on others, bud. Just because a group says they support something or are against something doesn't make it true. It's typically just serves as a cloak. Practically any authoritarian government has republic or democratic in the name of the ruling party or supposed type of government. A large portion of the left don't act or speak in line with their supposed core principles.

You want to limit free speech but yet you want the sitting party in the government of the US removed (when they been accused of being fascists)? What you're saying is asinine. Here's the thing, free speech protects everyone's free speech. If you limit your political opponents speech, you're only giving them the same tools and motivation to use it against you later on when power changes hands. Authoritarianism is idiotic and immoral.