[vladTheInhaler]

Okay, so we should not give exemptions to specific categories of people who are a priori assumed to be good. I think that's fair. Are you concerned that that's the situation in the original context? Or would be, if we somehow knew who the original commenter was talking about?

[mc32]

It would be healthier to not know the identity to avoid introducing unnecessary bias in the decision.

It shouldn’t be like: oh it was Joe the grocer, yeah he’s okay, let ‘im go. Vs, oh it was Ernie the latrine digger, he always makes my skin crawl; throw the book at him!

[vladTheInhaler]

So if the hate brigades were being launched by a group with a long track record of bad-faith and abusive behavior, you don't think that should inform your decision making?

[mc32]

Why not make a rule to address all brigading? why targeted against groups you like or dislike? The groups you like and dislike are not going to be concentric with other people's so keep it consistent.

[capitol_]

Because opinions are not all equal, some are better and some are worse.

Even if both antivaxxers and doctors have opinions on if people should get vaccinated it would be insane to treat them equally.

[mc32]

I’m at a bar, a doctor and a highway construction guy walks in with his buddies. They talk vaxxing. The doctor has his opinion, though he’s not a virologist, the crew have diverse opinions maybe unsettled but giving me their opinions. What, the barmaid throws the doctor or the highways guys out, whichever she disagrees with?

That’s not her job. She’s not there to suss out truth or even narrative. We’re all there for community chit chat.

The WHO and the CDC have changed their minds over and over. Yeah, I get it -things change. Exactly, what's true today may not be true tomorrow and that is the point. People should be able to have a discussion.