A free society has costs, including tolerating speech you find deplorable. To support censorship because it aligns with your current political leanings makes you no different than the politics you take issue with.
Will you complain if Google mass fires left leaning employees? It's entirely within their right to do. You could even start a competitor to hire those people!
I also think it’s grotesque to quote an anti nazi poem in defense of nazis.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Tolerance...
Then you should understand that when "threatening speech" is used to censor people on false pretexts, then this dilutes reasonable concerns about threatening speech. If one is really concerned about truly threatening speech, one should be actively calling out such abuses from one's own side. Also, what naturally goes with that, is the calling out of actual violence from one's own side.
This is also why civility is useful for the public discourse. It acts as a sort of "DMZ" wherein actual hostility is more readily visible. (And certain people on all sides of the public discourse should be called out in this regard.)
Sounds circular but you do you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection,_injection_and_surje...
Or to put it in very simplistic terms so that there is no misunderstanding, I am more worried about people who want to promote or engage in genocidal behavior than I am about missing out on possible future contributions to society from genocide enthusiasts who had difficulty reaching a sufficiently wide audience.
It's funny how right-wing people, who argue so hard for capitalism, fundamentally don't understand capitalism.
No. It's funny how people refuse to acknowledge the fact that Free Speech in the Public Square is held as more important than property rights.