One of the points made in that discussion yesterday is sometimes the “trolls” are just people trying to make an argument contrary to our own, and that they should have a right to express themselves; I was also told that dismissing disagreement as stupid or wrong was a prejudicial value judgement.
I would agree that there certainly are boundary conditions where that might be true; we’re looking at a continuum, not a sharp black and white world, where one side is uniformly bright and stellar and the other is dark and dim. But even on a continuum there are extremes; sometimes one side really is stupid.
Free speech is not an automatic good. Stephanie Zvan has done a fabulous job of documenting the tactical mode of some of our opponents, the ones who claim to dwell in “a bastion of the most free of free speech”, where they are totally free to say whatever they like, and where the shoddy operations of their lazy, slimy brains are openly exposed for all to see. These are the people who think the argument “YOUR FAT AND UGLY” is cogent, and who think spicing it up with a photoshopped image makes it more persuasive.
There’s a reason I automatically ban those people. They’re assholes, as they demonstrate over and over again.