The only rationally acceptable limit to opinion censorship: absolute dehumanization

This isn't much different from what I've discussed in other texts on the same topic. But here, I'll reinforce this thought more specifically. While I'm not in favor of further institutionalizing opinion censorship, this doesn't mean I'm in favor of no limits or controls at all, but rather that they be established based on a clearer definition of what constitutes an opinion that truly surpass all rationally acceptable limits. And, at least when it comes to opinions about groups, the element that distinguishes and highlights a completely execrable opinion, both intellectually and morally, is absolute dehumanization, as if all individuals belonging to a given group, especially if it's a vaguely defined group, were all the same in a completely negative, defamatory, and condemnatory sense...

For example: when a church pastor says that "all gays will go to hell for being gay," that's not the same as if any individual, who could also be an evangelical pastor, expresses a more critical opinion about this or that group without making such absolute and dehumanizing generalizations. Because, an objectively execrable opinion, not only simply being what it is, but can also easily extrapolate the abstract and manifest itself as an action or behavior.

Duas opiniões sobre opinião/Two opinions about opinion

 Afirmar que "opinião é apenas uma opinião", no sentido de ser sempre um achismo, é uma falácia de autoridade implícita, pois deixa sugerido que apenas a declaração de um especialista que importa, desprezando a existência de falsos especialistas (que só são oficialmente) ou que não tem o entendimento do tópico abordado, bem como de indivíduos que, apesar de não terem formação acadêmica ou técnica formal específica a certo conhecimento, apresentam ótimo a excelente proficiência no mesmo.  

E se essa mesma afirmação também é uma opinião, então, se fosse aplicada em si mesma, também seria tratada como "apenas uma opinião".

To say that "opinion is just an opinion", in the sense that it is always a guess, is a fallacy of implicit authority, because it suggests that only the statement of an expert matters, disregarding the existence of false experts (who are only officially experts) or who do not understand the topic in question, as well as individuals who, despite not having formal academic or technical training specific to a certain knowledge, have excellent proficiency in it.

And if this same statement is also an opinion, then, if it were applied to itself, it would also be treated as "just an opinion".