[daenz]

You're genuinely asking about the most extreme and uncharitable interpretation of the GP's post? Your question sounds like "If we should be kind to everyone, what about serial killers?" It is so out-of-place in the picture that's being painted, that I (and I'm sure others) am skeptical of the question. Maybe you can first qualify it by explaining how it is relevant in anything other than an extreme thought experiment?

[PuppyTailWags]

I don't personally ascribe to the idea that diversity of thought must be a value without the caveats I've ascribed above. The reason why I ask it is because I don't actually think my examples are that extreme; I've been presented with those literal ideas IRL by people who are otherwise quite normal. It's very common to essentially view other people as subhuman for their demographics. Therefore I'd like to know how to manage this fairly common human thinking pattern which functions to exclude other viewpoints, if we want to ascribe value to diverse human thinking. I've never been able to square this circle myself, therefore I am curious how other people square them.

To be clear, if the answer to "how do we both value human diverse thinking and also modes of thinking seeking to suppress other human diversity" is "well this clearly never happens", I think that entire premise risks being itself an extreme thought experiment with no grounding in reality.