There's no such thing as 'hate speech' any more than there's such a thing as 'blasphemy.' It's a bullshit fallacy designed to shield broken ideology from criticism. This is what the 'snowflake' epithet implies. Reversing it as you've done doesn't make much sense.

Germans have a responsibility not to browse sites illegal in their country. There's no reason the rest of us should have our lives dumbed down to the lowest common denominator calculated from a global catalog of verboten expression, especially since it comes from oppressive regimes that still cannot handle political criticism. If shitty ascii art is illegal in your country, you've got bigger problems than random internet discussion. If you're offended by it, you've got personal problems. That said, the filter system already exists and those who can't handle the heat can just browse at +2 to +5. I see no reason why an entire community should be dumbed down just to deter squabblings between a couple of users who can't be bothered to /ignore bullshit.

Like you, I have no idea who would be in charge if the culture was zero-tolerance. In all likelihood, we wouldn't have had much of a choice in selection of leaders as we wouldn't have had much of a democracy. Free speech is critically important to free society, much more than personal feelings.

Coward. You could just filter them out if you chose. There are plenty of alternatives if you want ideologically curated discussion.

Oh yes, comrade, I love it.

I've had my fill of so-called 'social justice' narratives infesting everything. It's turned entertainment into cringe-worthy DARE style PSAs and news outlets into soviet-style propaganda.

Perhaps the editors have decided their narratives are too important to be sullied with inconvenient counterarguments. The implications made in the headlines/summaries of the posted articles suggest the possibility. That, or maybe they're trying to shut down apk and ascii art spam.

Neither reason is an excuse to kill anon posts.

these two are not mutually exclusive. It's likely true that both orientations are root in biology. Of course, the current crop of lunatics thinks everything is a 'social construct.' I guess 'born that way' wasn't 'nuanced' enough for them to redefine as they please to get their way.

'Asshole' is subjective. Two people could easily consider each other assholes while you consider both reasonable people with a disagreement. 'Troll' has a specific meaning, but the word has been abused to the point of meaninglessness. Now it just means 'someone whose ideas I disagree with yet can't muster a counterargument.'

Your post is a perfect example of the hypocrisy inherent in identity politics: it's just another form of supremacy cloaked in crocodile tears.

True. Does/should this right of free association also apply to religious bakers choosing not to make wedding cakes for gay couples? How about private clubs choosing not to allow muslims or blacks? No, of course that's somehow completely different.

It's hilarious how quickly the left comes to the defense of free association when it works in their favor, especially after all the time spent equivocating it with jim crow laws.

There are 4 basic choices:

1. use it and tolerate the annoyance
2. don't use it
3. find a way around the annoyance
4. see if someone else has already come up with a solution for the annoyance

or you could just, I don't know, hit ctrl-w and do something else.

..or that's just the excuse to silence ALL contrary political expression.

and ideological tyrants huffing ivory tower vacuum aren't terribly interested in hearing about the highly illiberal fallout created from the practical application of their ideologies on us littlepeople. Socialist is a perfectly reasonable epithet.

So are you a a conservative Christian trump supporter or a progressive sjw supporting totalitarian 'inclusivity'? I ask because, these days, it is hard to tell the difference.

If they can't be bothered to get such a basic, well known acronym correct, then I have to wonder about their technical chops. When 'tech' journalists do this, it is almost always a dead giveaway that they do not know much more than the average joe and should not be taken seriously. This has been understood for decades now. zdnet has always been laughable. It's just that a lot of other sites now share this condition and have joined it at the bottom feeding table.

You're ignoring the fact that the press jumps all over anything that doesn't conform to certain narratives, probably because you agree with them. They wait with baited breath for someone on their watchlist like Torvalds to commit a 'violation' they can point and screech about like the chuckleheads they are.

Big business will rue the day it allowed social justice beachheads on its turf. It's already happening to companies like facebook and google.

Having the traits listed is not the same thing is being an asshole.