You're acting as if only what is true is applauded here and that what is recognised as true on face value by one is recognised as true by all.

Am I? So if anyone can have input it deteriorates but if you elect some of them as arbiters of truth that leads to a more truthful outcome? Do more people really converge towards truth that way?

I wouldn't have the arguments I am having right now if I believed that to be true. What I said is that silencing someone won't make it better.

Look at it this way, what if every sub here was dominated by flat feathers, it would get depressing really quickly, wouldn't it?

How do you suppose it would get into such a state? One of the few ways flat earthers can maintain communities, that I have seen, is through censorship. Without it, they usually bleed users until they cannot maintain their communities and they are irrelevant.

Why do you think it is not flat Earthers being banned from Twitter or Reddit? It is far easier to show that they are wrong, isn't it? They are not being banned because they are not taken seriously at this point. Their positions have been so thoroughly discredited that they simply have no relevance, not because they have mobs of protestors outside of their lectures or whatever meetups they have. Why are the media not tearing into flat Earthers but people who criticize feminism, transgenderism and so forth? Wouldn't it be far easier to discredit flat Earthers than, let's say, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Stefan Molyneux, Jared Taylor?

I don't accept that neutral environments that try to promote healthy discussion should have to cater to such things.

Bullshit. The most unhealthy thing about Internet debate today is censorship and banning. People who have nothing of value to contribute can be ignored. I have no problem with you being free to listen to who you want, but that is different from categorically excluding people based on a certain set of opinions.

I also despise the terminology you use. What is "healthy discussion"? It's entirely subjective. Someone being silenced for their opinion is something I do not find healthy, especially if shutting them down is because you cannot refute their arguments. What did OP leave for? For this place being "too conservative"? What does that mean? If that means that people are wrong about X, then why did he not say

"I am leaving because people are wrong about X"?

Because he could not refute X! Because he did not like X. That is why. Don't give me your bullshit about "healthy discussion". If he could have identified X then he would not have left with this hand waving excuse. And he would have probably not left if he could even formulate it in this way. What these people want is to state a certain opinion and not receive pushback. If you do not want honest debate on a subject, then you do not want debate. As I said, enter your opinion in a text to speech app and have it read back to you.

"I do not like your opinions because they are too Internetty."

That's what I'm going to say next time some clown argues that way. What the fuck does any of that mean? Why are people fogging so much? It's always the sign of a hypocrite, that they can either not articulate clearly what they think or they cannot come out clearly stating what they think. It's always word games, hand waving, and euphemisms.