I'm sorry, but that's just not how it works. Part of free speech is accepting the fact that other people with dissenting/disagreeable opinions will also be able to have a voice.

Exactly. So people fighting for the right for racists to speak are excluding minority voices (and any other reasonable person who doesn't want to join a racist community).

Do I like the stormfronters on coontown? No. Do I like the radfem harassment from places like SRS? No. Do I think either of them deserve to be censored/deleted? Absolutely not. At the end of the day, regardless of how stupid or wrong their statements or viewpoints may be, they are people. I guess this may be idealism, but I don't think anyone should be robbed of their voice.

I don't think you can really compare SRS pointing out shitty comments to Stormfronters and Coontown members, but regardless, I essentially agree - nobody should be robbed of their voice. The part you're missing is that those two groups are incompatible so one of them will inevitably lose their voice. The question is just which is more worthy of having a voice - in my opinion, it's not the racists.

This logic doesn't pan out. On the flip side, wouldn't the fact that minorities post on the community mean that stormfronters would not sign up?

Not really since racists love to sign up to communities full of minorities because that's what they do; harass people and try to recruit the ignorant. They also have the opportunity to live their lives without being challenged for their racism (because most of the time they can keep it quiet or even get supported for it), whereas minorities obviously don't have that option so they aren't going to take a break from their life by subjecting themselves to more bigoted shit.

Clearly this is not the case, as looking at reddit, there is an incredibly wide variety of communities, many in clear conflict of the other. /r/MRA existing doesn't stop /r/TwoX from existing, and vice versa.

Probably not the best example, TwoX was overrun by MRAs and men in general and so all the women had to leave... But even if that wasn't the case, it still isn't the best example as mensrights generally aren't as hostile and harassing as other bigots, so you seem to be trying to compare actual bigots to dissenting opinions. Nobody is talking about removing dissenting opinions, just bigoted exclusionary ones.

You say this again here, but I just can't wrap my head around where exactly this mentality is coming from. The speech of minorities is worth no more or less than anyone else's.

I don't understand how you can say this - of course the perspective from minorities is more important and valuable than the blind rage of bigots.. That's a no-brainer.

By that logic, because Caucasians are technically a minority in the world, does the word of the Caucasian hold more weight, and people of color should not be allowed to criticize them?

Caucasians aren't a minority in the relevant sense here. "Minority" doesn't mean "statistical minority", it refers to the relationship within a given society and across the world white people are generally the privileged group, even in places where they are rare or outnumbered.

But if I owned a community with an analogous problem where minorities were using my community to spread hate and attack white people, and white people were less willing to go there, then I would remove the hateful groups because that wouldn't be the kind of community I'd want.

It's funny you should mention these, because that's exactly what happens. If I were to ask you to describe the typical political spectrum of the average college student, and their viewpoints, I think we can both agree that the stereotype adheres to them quite well. Left leaning, probably close to the idea of what a stereotypical "Social Justice Warrior" (you know my meaning on this) would be.

That's certainly a common stereotype but not really true. I'm not sure what you mean by "SJW" though since the common meaning seems to be "left of the Nazis".

What do you think would happen if someone of an opposite ideology attempted to debate something?

Framing it as an issue of "ideologies" is a little disingenuous, generally the protests occurred with people who have endorsed incest, date rape, etc.

It's strange you mention academia and then also try to state that they are somehow also apply this logic. Do you so quickly forget what comes of the stifling of opinion and ideas in academia? There was an entire period of history where the views of anything that contradicted the norm at the time (the church in particular), was viewed as blasphemy and it was indeed a literal echo chamber of opinions.

Well for starters, we aren't living in the 1600s any more. But secondly, the common myth about the Church stifling views has been debunked so many times. The Church was one of the biggest supporters of scientific advances, and were the early adopters of things like heliocentrism and evolution. The "blasphemy" only occurred when the 'scientist' went outside of academia and started doing things like insulting the pope.

At it's core, this issue has nothing to do with bigots, misogyny, misandry, racism, sexism, whatever. It has to do with instead of taking the opportunity to interact with your fellow man, and use the opportunity to engage them and provoke true thought provoking discussion, you silence them. What good will ever come of silencing someone?

Exactly! So why force minorities out of our communities instead of being more inclusive and having a discussion with them?

What good will ever come of silencing someone? I think it's much more fruitful to engage the racist/sexist/misogynist/misandrist/bigot, to talk and reason with them. Only then will you come to an understanding and have an opportunity to change their perspective.

But nobody is talking about silencing them. They still have free speech, they can just do it elsewhere. For example, I see great value in talking to and studying pedophiles to understand what makes them tick. I'm not going to invite one to stay in my house though. That's not "silencing" them because I don't allow them in my private space, it's just that I would care more about my children's freedoms than the pedophile's.