The flipside of your statement is "I'm starting to think that only the people whose opinions aren't silenced are the ones who like safe spaces"
Would you have also advocated that people shouldn't say "mold cures disease"? How would we have then come to a consensus that in fact this mold does cure bacterial infections if we couldn't discuss it because it was considered "too dangerous to ever discuss"?
First, that it doesn't get us anywhere to declare some statements as "facts" or "objective truth", because whether or not something is or isn't a "fact" is in effect the entire debate; it begs the question.
Second, I'm pointing out that we already draw lines between colorable arguments and disqualified nonsense. For instance, if you attended Yale Medicine and started preaching that vaccines were poison and bleach was medicine, you would probably not last long there; Yale Medicine classes are (I presume) a "safe space" against "drink bleach" --- which, again, is an actual thing.
For the most part, you're allowed to tell people that bleach is medicine. You shouldn't, but you won't get arrested for it. Similarly: people who want other kinds of "safe spaces" aren't going to achieve a public policy outcome where transphobia and other forms of bigotry are outlawed; rather, they're aiming for something similar, in specific settings, to what top-tier medical schools do to disqualify laetrile advocacy. That doesn't sound crazy to me.
All this stuff is fraught, of course; I follow and endorse FIRE, who seem to have interesting things to say about this and come at it from a fairly hard-line 1A set of principles. Also, if you pay attention to FIRE, you'll see that this kind of campus free speech stuff comes from all sides of the political spectrum. Everyone overreaches; we're human.
"Drink bleach to cure diseases" is not a fact. I'm not sure what that example is supposed to mean. Obviously people making stuff up is a problem but isn't that the complete opposite of facts?
Now people can still discuss and debate anything based on the facts as a narrative and reason for other topics and scenarios, but if you're debating the facts themselves then we're not going to get very far unless you bring evidence.
The point isn't that they're right; the point is that you can't simply declare one side of an argument "factual" and the other not and then walk away from it without acknowledging that some exogenous authority is what's allowing you to do that, and while we're probably all going to agree about the right authority for basic medicine, we're likely to disagree about the authorities on other issues.
Coherence is not understanding. Not applying the scientific method and saying there's a bunch of anecdotal evidence does not override the scientific foundations. At that point then there's no discussion to start because you don't agree with others on the premise of reality based on common consensus. It's like trying to talk about math when you believe 2 + 2 = 5 instead.
Now if you're talking about metaphysical "what is real" conversations then there are no facts or a "safe space" logical boundary to be worried about since you can say literally anything and it can, and must, be accepted for such a discussion to occur.
The problem isn't that it's invariably hard to come to reasonable conclusions. Obviously, I think vaccines are very good, and that climate change is real. The problem is that "science!" isn't a Konami Code that automatically wins arguments.
The thread here is about TGD people. The comment to which I responded implied that there were "legitimate facts" that should end the dispute. I doubt that commenter's "legitimate facts" are coterminous with my own. Why should I accept them? That disparity doesn't make me right or wrong; rather, it just demonstrates what I keep saying, which is the "but facts" argument doesn't actually say anything or move the conversation forward.
Science does move it forward because it's the foundation. The issue you're describing is someone not understanding science. Again this is like trying to use math when you don't understand it, or trying to talk if you don't understand the language. The basics must be agreed on for progress to be made.
As for the rest of your comment, you're delving into the "question reality" philosophical aspect. And like I said, at that point, in regards to this HN thread, there is no need for a safe space because anything and everything is up for a debate.
> "science has conclusively shown something that TGD safe-space people don't want to hear"
This plays out in every single HN thread when controversial subjects come up. We just had one a few days ago about male and female brains.
> "I think it's likely that it's you that misunderstands what science is and how it works, not me."
That's interesting because I've said that understanding science is a prerequisite to understanding the consensus of objective truths while explaining how those truths are derived from the scientific method and proofs, yet you argue that it's irrelevant in your prior comments since it can all be questioned endlessly.
So which is it? Either you understand it and there are objective truths or you question it all. Claiming that someone else doesn't understand it is doing exactly what you say can't be done as an argument.
Or, perhaps, I do know what science is and how it works, and having a consistent argument shows the power of using science in discussions where both parties agree on the same principles of reality? Anyways, this seems to have run its course so I'll end it there.