[os2warpman]

>Their users acted like assholes, their admins did nothing about it, so I decided I didn’t want to talk to them anymore.

It has been my experience that the more vocal someone is about free speech rights the more likely it is that they are only vocal because they want to use those rights as a shield against criticism of their bigoted, annoying, or anti-social behavior and they want to criticize people for distancing themselves from the bigotry.

To them free speech is mandatory listening-- to them, no matter what.

[kstrauser]

That's been my observation. "Freedom to... say what exactly?"

I'm A-OK with people saying constructive, civil things I disagree with. I might reply with my disagreement but that's OK. We're talking! I have zero patience with someone jumping in with trolling, harassment, or other abuse.

[robertlagrant]

> Freedom to... say what exactly?

What's the difference between this and saying "Criminals want trials with defence lawyers, so people who want trials with defence lawyers are criminals"?

[winternewt]

At least when someone promotes free speech there's a chance that they are proponents of democratic principles. If they are against free speech you know that they have an authoritarian ideology.

[kstrauser]

No one believes themselves to be against free speech.

[account42]

You do.

> I blocked them because one of their users called me the n-word

[kstrauser]

I'm not against free speech. I'm just exercising my right not to have to hear them, or to spend my own money to carry the traffic they're generating. They can still say whatever they want to whomever they choose. We just get to decide not to listen.

[norir]

There is a well known effect that goes by many names that anything taken to its extreme becomes its opposite.