Then you’re finding it worthwhile to support a system that allows for you to merely tolerate it

We had something like this in our philosophy class.

That’s not the question. The question is just if you find it to enable the kind of life you value. If your experience is that a system doesn’t do this, don’t support it. This isn’t that complicated lol

Makes sense for me to interpret what OP said in that way because I find logic and reading comprehension worthwhile for life.

The “makes sense” in the op means that from the perspective of the doer, it makes sense. OP is not saying that it’s “objectively beneficial to all humans”.

It’s a description of how people make choices.

OP didn’t say it was good or bad. Just that it makes sense for them because they thought it was what they like.

There’s a difference between saying “I think X, and Here’s Why: Proof” and “YOU SHOULD NEVER CONSUME X IT WILL KILL YOU”

I’m fine with civil discourse, even with some unsavory opinions. Not so fine with people spreading blatant misinformation and propaganda. There needs to be decent moderation for this, which as I understand, Odysee seems to fail at.

As @dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone is pointing out, commitment to (absolute) free speech tends to attract Nazis. And by Nazis I mean, actual, literal Nazis, not just people who don’t agree with me on soylent being a decent meal replacement.

Also, lets never forget that (absolute) free speech would also cover allowing “theoretical” discussion on how to manipulate, groom and kidnap children for certain purposes etc. How to “theoretically” build bombs. How to “theoretically” drug and kill people etc. You might not be persecuted for having these “theoretical” discussions, which is fine but I think it’s healthy for any online space to remove such topics.

Yeah whenever I see “crypto”, I get a slight internal sigh/groan.