[sacnoradhq]

There is a fundamental weakness in the fascist-adjacent proscription of orthodoxy while forbidding anything that may challenge or question it. That is not liberalism, it is an echo chamber lacking contact and ability to deal with the whole world.

I also disapprove of the tendency to muzzle people with prior restraint because they raise controversial points because somehow "harmony" is more important than insightful and authentic discourse on topics of greater import because someone "might be offended" or "will encourage negative interactions". If only certain topics can be discussed while others cannot, that is a lack of freedom.

[Nevermark]

We should all have a healthy allergic reaction when things start being argued for and against via extremely general negative terms applied in a subjective way, i.e:

> "fascist-adjacent proscription of orthodoxy".

Every sport has rules, within which great skill can be demonstrated by being able to work within the rules, but in difficult and unexpected ways.

Debates with rules such as "remain relevant to the topic" or "make arguments for A over your opponents arguments for B", are legitimate competitions, that develop legitimately useful skills.

It is not "muzzling" to allow anyone to say whatever they want, but judge their achievements based on the rules of engagement that define a debate competition.

There are no police on a basketball court stopping players from throwing the ball wherever they want. They just won't get points for not putting the ball in the basket.

[Paul-Craft]

"This is not liberalism" is not an argument for or against anything.

[stuartjohnson12]

Are you not forbidding forbiddance? Is that not a form of orthodoxy itself?

[whimsicalism]

Forbiddance exists in that the judge can decide whom to vote for. Actually halting a debate midround because they broke some tenuous topic rule is a much more aggressive action