There is a point that I am clearly failing to make.

All the disagreement about the brave stuff, about the topic that generated discussion is there. You can check for yourself in discord or on the forum. I also want to note that the forum post has been closed temporarily and reopened several times. It's not completely unreasonable to close a topic when the discussions are going completely off the rails, which in this case was happening (both critics and supporters did that).

That said, there is nothing that evidently shows the intention to stifle disagreement, including the request to move the discussion elsewhere (discord has tons of critical content even now). However, the user who started the thread wanted to discuss something else, which is not related to the discussion at hand, but related to how they moderated the discussion (claiming something we have no idea about. Were their comments really deleted? What was their content? Were they maybe violating some rule? Who knows what they wrote, maybe the insulted other users directly). We have no proof whatsoever that they censored comments from queer folks specifically (which is the whole argument of the thread, both mastodon one and the screenshot attached), there is only that user claiming they did because their comments were allegedly deleted (maybe it's true, but again, who knows why). Considering that there is plenty of criticism still present in both discord and the forum, I don't see how I need to suspend the judgment to call that claim bullshit, because I can objectively see that criticism was not censored. In addition to that, I can also make a judgment based on character. That user used completely bullshit claims to fabricate accusations, in that very same context. The whole point of that threat was a smear campaign against that guy, and they didn't bother at all to repeat what they posted, for example, or make a proper argument. They just claimed something with a screenshot that doesn't give any information and other supporting arguments that are even more ridiculous (the country site and the "interpretation" of a sentence that I quoted above).

I am not even sure why there is the need to discuss anything coming from that person. If that was a conservative/trump supporter making some claim with analogue arguments, they would be laughed out of Mastodon (rightfully). And that is the only source about the attitude towards LGBTQ+ folks. Don't you think that before making such a broad statement, we should have at least some consistent pattern? A bunch of examples that show the attitude or something like that?

And no, it's not "two users" because, as I said before, from what I understand the other user referred to the thread in the screenshot, not to the "critical comments" deleted before, which we have no idea about.