There’s plenty of evidence that many sites (twitter included) allow violent speech from specific groups because they’re worried of the political backlash. These groups still complain about being silenced just the same, despite blatantly violating the TOS.

It doesn’t work. You’re just giving dangerous and violent people a platform to organize, encourage and enable violence. As a platform owner, you can’t just hope they’ll behave if you treat them nicely.

Deplatforming works.

Although it may mean fewer people become part of the community it would also mean that those that remain with it are now more isolated from the outside world and increase the precieved level of persecution? Would this then correlate with an increase in action?

I don't know the answer to this, it seems logical to me that each of these answers would be yes, but I definitely think it is a topic worth investigating and discussing.

Any evidence for that assertion?

Our laws explicitly forbid the national military "taking over" in such situations -- the national guard (state military) is who is supposed to be deployed.

If conservatives feel they are being silenced but cannot recognize that the views 'censored' are often bigoted, racist, or simply unpopular or abhorrent outside their bubble, then what do you to? If you call out blatant racism you are less likely to find the user recognize their racism, apologize, and not use such language again and more likely to be called a snowflake and have that behavior turned up a notch. If the original comment is then downvoted by the community or removed by mods then it will enforce that persons view that they are being attacked. This is incredibly common on Reddit where users often include a 'bring on the downvotes' type edit after stating something intolerant or clearly false.

The solution is not to allow these views and opinions to sit unchecked but to recognize a modern civil society must be intolerant of intolerance and moderate appropriately. Downvote and report racist comments. Apply fact checking to statements, even those you believe or feel to be true as that is a sign of bias. If the user doubles down, move on as there is no value in arguing with someone putting their feelings and beliefs/bias above facts and reality. Perhaps when society or their online community turns their back on their comments they will finally have the time to reflect on why and recognize their behavior was unwarranted and unwanted.

Teetering on the brink of an epiphany.

By designating everyone who doesn't agree with you as "the right" that can't every act in good faith and is irredeemable you galvanize the more moderates. This incident won't have a substantive impact on the far right, but it may cause a change in opinion in more moderate voices.

Essentially be advocating this black and white extremism you hurt your cause and play into the very narrative that those on the other side are saying.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm not a pure conservative, but I expect I hold several views you'd find repugnant and label as "conservative". For instance, I am strongly pro-life. Another one: I believe deeply in the existence of God (and other supernatural beings).

I am, therefore, a bad-faith actor, if I'm following right?

edit: let me add a proof point from something that matters to you. https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2020/05/21/a...

Conservatives in this country believe in "small government", "individual freedoms" and "separation between church and state" until a large slice of their electorate turns out to be religious fundamentalists, then they start mandating transvaginal ultrasounds in order to get an abortion etc...

Does that sound like intellectual honesty or good faith?

Apparently it doesn't, so I guess I didn't get what you meant.

I tried to go back and reread it, but it's flagged now and I don't see a way to.

I think your example is actually closer to intellectual honesty than you think it is.

"Small government" is not "no government".

To a pro-life conservative, abortion is murder.

I've yet to meet a conservative who doesn't think the government should be involved in preventing murder.

Requiring you look at the victim before killing them is a pretty pathetic protection against murder, but it's probably better than nothing.

I'd guess from your framing that you support abortion rights. If so, I can certainly see why this would look like intellectual dishonesty to you, but as I argued above, I think that's due to not understanding the people you're talking about well enough, at least in this case.

None of them? They are ALL acting bad faith? Is that a good faith argument?