That's not up to you. Real intellectual discourse isn't your way or the highway. You, like anyone else, has the potential to be wrong, and you're probably wrong a lot more than you think you are. If your arguments don't sway people, that's neither your failing nor the failing of those you are trying to convince. When you censor people, that only emboldens them, and proves to everyone that yes, there are people who want to censor discourse.

Yes, you are inherently fighting in support of the establishment if you are censoring ideas that the establishment doesn't support. You can't have it both ways.

Violence is one thing, but you're also lumping in violence with conspiracy theories, which in turn constructs its own form of orthodoxy. This is why I don't support censorship to such a degree that it invades the public space; all it does is promote a religion of some kind, whether it be Christianity or "the science is settled". By the way, violence only ever seems bad when it goes against your sensibilities. If violence supported your world view, statistically speaking, you are likely to justify it. America was founded on violence, and lots of people throughout the political spectrum believe that the violence was justified. If you build a system that is so technologically perfect that it extinguishes violence from the public space, then you have created a system of slavery.

Let's stop pretending that we're against violence and admit that we're against violence of certain agendas.