In case this comic is meant to be taken seriously:
This strategy might be problematic because it gives uncontrolled power to those who can simply define who is a bigot (e.g. also by lying or tinkering with facts). Defending oneself with rational arguments is not possible after the FWOOOSH has happened.
There are many objectively hard problems to solve and rational debate was a major innovation of humankind which before used to solve problems by violence and mere power projection.
@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing @kddk this is what I've been thinking when I hear people say "the problem with Mastodon is that instance admins have too much power" (most recently as part of "why #nostr is better" arguments, e.g. https://nostr.com/comparisons/mastodon). Like yes being in a curated online space means you're subject to those curation policies. But if you agree with those policies, it generally results in an experience that's much better than what you get on a "neutral" platform.
E.g. the instance I joined has some strong views, but I agree with those views so it feels like a cozy home base where I can express my thoughts and end up engaged in friendly discussions about those topics as opposed to debates that don't go anywhere. Such as this one, perhaps? 😉
I think the value of most Internet debates that don't lead to a clear change in perspective is hard to quantify. But I suppose we're all getting something from this or we wouldn't be talking to each other (probably? 🙂)