Trolls are everywhere, all a person can do is ignore them and leave. When someone is clearly trolling in the sense of being insulting, any reaction only freeds

What I am referancing is when someone states a personal view that does invoke a reaction, there's no intellectual curiousity to see where that comes from, it's easier to ban them or try to get them suspended, which only proves how weak they are as a person because because it shows that they need to be protected from any belief they can't defend against.

What is your issue with libertarians, and what type of libertarian are you talking about? There are libertarians that I am strongly for, and libertarians that I despise everything they believe, but each ofthose are different types. It would be a misnomer or a mistake to simply lump all of them as being libertarian.

For example I believe left libertarians can cause damage because they want zero social restrictions, and right libertarians understand better about self control or self restraint and humility.

Yes, some people move the goalposts when their statements get defeated, I am talking about, or asking, why do people need protection and silencing from some who makes a statement those goes against what they believe in?

There's no reason to react so strongly. Simply don't engage, ignore it, and continue on with life.

Beliefs and opinions have never hurt anyone, only action hurts someone. A person can only offend you if you allowthem and give them the power to offend. If you think someone's statement is repulsive and forget about what you read, they can't do anything to bother you.

In a true debate, I expect humility and dignity, and anything less than that is only them trying to win, it's not a conservational debate to challege each other so iron can sharpen iron.

There's no such thing as "So hateful it's harmful", that is a facade or a tool of deception used to censor someone because the other side can't prove it to be false.

Hurt feelings does make a statement false, and something that feels good, sounds good, does not mean that isthe truth. Lies must have a small element of truth ind them in order to be believeable.

Something that is 100% lie won't last, but if it's 80% lie then people will stick to it.

What I'm referancing is if someone sees a comment they strongly reject, why can't people either ignore it and leave it, or have an open dialogue to see where they disagree and where something might be a false belief system?

I can agree that sometimes a person only want to dump on people to make themself feel better. I am still not willing to censor someone like that. I refuse to listen to them, but I'm not going to censor them.

Each person can decide for themself if they want to engage with someone or ignore them

That means you do want censorship and silencing of others at a certain point, even though what a person believes cause no harm to others, it's only when they act on it than it can be damaging.

It's better for people to speak freely without consequences so you know what a person truly believes so you know who to avoid. With censorship or silencing, you will never know who someone truly because they won't discuss, and that person could turn against you when they have an opportunity to hurt you because they had to stay silent about what they truly throught all along but you never knew because they were avoiding any consequences for what they believe in.

That's a short sided simplified view of what I said. I was talking about either comments on a public platform or in a long form format.

I strongly agree and support everything you said.

For example, I'm religious, and strict at that, but when I talk to an athiest, their atheism has no affect on my religious devotion. I can still talk to them about music groups, shows, current events, games, internet things, and leave God out of the conversation so we can connect as 2 people, show care for each other, and avoid mentioning subjects that we are on opposite ends.