as much as i hate trump we should hate the sin and not the sinner

lots of trump supporters could easily be leftists

If that's what the people in that magazine want to see they're not being trolled at all. Now if that shit leaks out, then yeah I'm 100% with you.

Even among people who like trump, there are plenty of people who know that he lost the election.

Even if Biden cheated (and I'm not saying he did), people who cheat to win elections are called the winner of the election. Laws tend to fine campaigns for cheating rather than changing the outcome of the election.

As an example where a campaign was fined for malfeasance during a campaign, the Clinton campaign was fine for misbehavior in the 2016 election related to the steele dossier https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/30/dnc-clinton-campaign-fine-dossier-spending-disclosure-00021910

However, although that example was of a losing campaign, up in my home country of Soviet canuckistan, several election cycles ago the conservative Stephen Harper government was fined for election fraud, and that's all that happened. They were officially in charge and they stayed that way until the election of Justin Trudeau in 2015.

Typically, lawmakers want election issues to be dealt with by the electorate, they're extremely extremely wary about stepping in and changing elections on their own.

While we're on the topic though, I would like to remind everybody that it is extremely typical for the losing side of an election to claim that the other side cheated. In 2000, there were plenty of people pointing out fuckiness in the supreme Court decision that ended George W. Bush the election, and in 2004 election machines were singled out as a potential method of cheating by the Democrats when John Kerry lost the presidential election, and in 2016 there were lots of cries saying that there was election interference that led to the election of Donald Trump.

I really like this interpretation of the Paradox of Intolerance:

The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance, not as a moral standard, but as a social contract.
If someone does not abide by the contract, then they are not covered by it.
In other words: The intolerant are not abiding by the terms of the social contract of mutual tolerance. Since they have broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer covered by the contract, and their intolerance should NOT be tolerated.

Link to source.

That "paradox" is bunk and is only good for justifying censorship.

That's not what they said at all.

What they said is that just because you don't agree with the opposite opinion doesn't make the person saying that opinion a troll. They may be a hateful motherfucker, but a hateful motherfucker who is trying to talk in good faith.

They aren't arguing some enlightened centrist "everyones opinions are equal" bullshit. They're just arguing that opposite opinion does not equal automatic troll.

You can block people and communities… I’m a trans woman; naziism and really just social conservatism works against me. I still think they should have a space to spout off, just as I should have a space to spout off about how irresponsible, bigoted and cruel their statements are. I also think there is nothing wrong with safe spaces; I mean look at raddle.me and on the opposite end Facebook and Twitter. Taking someone’s tounge doesn’t prove them wrong, only that you are afraid of what they have to say. The words of a fascist should be said and maybe repeated so they can be struck down by those who prefer love to hate.

You can start by boosting instead of using the arrow, which is actually currently only counting as favoriting and does nothing to counter any reduces on a post. It's an oversight that's being worked on and will eventually change, as I've understood it.

Argue all you want. But if you're going to argue that the line between what is acceptable and what isn't is what is legal, first off, uh, no (fascist rhetoric is legal in most places), and second, whose laws do you want to apply?