That's not an absurdity. There's no contradiction in those statements. You simply disagree because you have different priorities from me.
>I withdraw the moral nihilist comment, because I've realized you can't be that, given that you're prescriptively arguing for no moderation as being superior to moderation. That means there is some moral system there that you're not disclosing
Like I said, it depends on the interpretation of the word. If you're using the word "morals" to refer to a system of values (i.e. a set of relative importances that are assigned to things) that inform people's decisions, then yes, I believe in those, obviously.
>If you're not arguing from some tribal culture war motivation, then I find your opinions to be bizarre and can't understand the system of principles or axioms that they come from.
What do you find bizarre about the following?
* In any system involving multiple people, fairness is of utmost importance to maintain stability and cohesion. Unfair treatment causes conflict and divisions.
* No idea should be silenced. The acceptance that some ideas should be silenced and others not inevitably leads to conflict regarding the rationale itself and whether it's applied fairly, and may lead to a slippery slope. On the other hand, if absolute free speech is in effect no one can legitimately complain that they're being treated unfairly.
There are also more practical reasons to oppose censorship in all its forms, such as the Streisand effect.
