Actually, I don't care for censorship. I'd rather let the idea be presented and let the intolerance for it drown it out by way of copious rebuttals, not removal. I won't know if I'm on the side of the angels, but I'll know I'm in good company and I'll have heard both sides at levels roughly proportionate to the size of the population interested in defending each side.

In hindsight, I see how citing codes of conduct implies support for censorship, when my actual intent was simply to demonstrate another example of "intolerance" having noble goals.

These are fine questions, and their answers should sit uncomfortably in all humans. But unless we are content to let human knowledge dissolve into meaninglessness, we must look to something external to our own reasoning to help decide what to believe. For me, I have drawn that line at Scientific Consensus because it has proved the most robust tool humanity has ever found for determining what is actually true. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than everything else? Undoubtedly yes. I think it must be the starting point and possibly the ending point for all discussions of this nature. To use another tool you must first convince me it is better than Scientific Consensus.

"ut unless we are content to let human knowledge dissolve into meaninglessness, we must look to something external to our own reasoning to help decide what to believe. For me, I have drawn that line at Scientific Consensus because it has proved the most robust tool humanity has ever found for determining what is actually true"

Well, I agree with the scientific consensus on a general base. But since science was not always right, I don't see a valid argument from there to censorship.

You want to censor ideas not covered by scientific consensus?

"and their answers should sit uncomfortably in all humans"

Because, also no. I do not feel uncomfortable. I am strongly against censorship. Open, unrestricted exchange of ideas. If the scientific way is the best (which I believe), then the crackpot approaches will fail naturally. But if you censor those other approaches, you might actually strenghten them.

Your plan is reasonable if human minds were genuinely and effectively open to letting the best ideas win. But they are not. Human minds care more about reputation than veracity and this has important ramifications for plans like yours: namely that they don’t work. Confirmation bias is real and pervasive and as completely in control of my mind as it is of yours. I encourage you to read Haidt’s The Righteous Mind and see if what you purpose still makes sense.

And this is the root of the divide, as far as I can tell. It's quite literally nerds and bullies all over again. Those who see the light and those who think you're a tool for doing so.

Netiquette 101: Don't feed the trolls. (But here we are.)

Everyone thinks the other side is a tool. This is so pervasive it must be completely discarded as a measure of truth.