I'd rather hear you engage in the debate (I'd definitely be on your side in opposing racism) than simply to ban some topics from being discussed at all. The topics will still be discussed, but only in underground cells of fanatics who will not then hear opposing points of view.

I happen to strenuously disagree with communism (perhaps because I have been studying Chinese since the Cultural Revolution, and Russian even earlier, so I have read a lot of communist literature over the decades) but I would try to be respectful and hear you out if you desired to convince me that my point of view is wrong and yours is correct. Hacker News isn't exactly the place for a debate about the rights and wrongs of communism, but I think the key principle is that everything has to open for discussion in a public place where adults can join in to debate differing points of view.

> "I have family in Paris who have steadily become more and more reactionary as the FN (the French far-right) have been given more exposure, even before these attacks."

What makes you think there must be a causational relationship between these two things? Or for that matter, if we assume for the moment that one did cause the other, how can you be sure which caused which? Perhaps the FN has become more and more mainstream as a result of more and more French citizens drifting towards the right.

> "And it's not an "opposing viewpoint" to me, it's just completely harmful."

I don't really understand why being an opposing viewpoint and being harmful are mutually exclusive to you. You do oppose their viewpoint (very strongly it seems), so it surely is an opposing viewpoint.

>What makes you think there must be a causational relationship between these two things?

It's probably more that the growth of the FN is a result of people becoming "more and more reactionary".

Communism is "objectively wrong and not things that are up for debate."

Not to mention "completely harmful".

Everyone has their own different opinion on which policies and ideas are "objectively wrong and not things that are up for debate". Further, how can you even define terms like racism in ways that are not too broad or too narrow. The meaning of these things can change over time and context. For example debates about immigration, affirmative action etc.

Usually things that are vaguely stated aren't great for delineating as "objectively wrong" or not, since the definition can stretch in all kinds of ways.

Come up with something you want to maximize, that most people will agree with, like human health, and find ways to quantify it. Then you can at least start to see which policies lead to which results.