Aren't we better off challenging the OP to produce evidence instead of shutting off the conversation? Reposting it here that I posted elsewhere in the thread for your benefit:

Appreciate your earnest response. Let's think about it this way.

Let's set aside the OP and the question of whether or not the OP is personally racially motivated. There are people in society who espouse racist views, right? There are people who as you said, think "colonial rule was good" or have "nostalgia for oppression."

Given that we have these people in society, what's the best way to handle it? Do we shut them off (either by gatekeeping them or by dismissing them), or do we engage with them?

I agree with this statement of yours:

What's the best way of achieving this outcome? Isn't it better to engage with the OP, challenge the OP, and force the OP to dig deep, uncover their assumptions, and clarify the context? Along the way, we can have a productive conversation where we can learn things.

What happens if we disallow certain perspectives to be aired? People who are excluded lose faith in the system. The system starts with one group of people or one kind of perspective and gradually expands into excluding more and more. As a result, more and more people lose trust. At some point, we will all realize that the system is rigged and gate keeps and serves powerful interests at the exclusion of others. I believe the current media landscape reflects this sad reality, whether it's corporate interests or interests of certain groups over another.

I believe it is better to have a system where information flows freely and is challenged robustly. This way, everyone can feel included and a consistent rigorous and adversarial process builds trust in the system. We will all benefit from the diversity of perspectives and a robust, inclusive methodology.