Pretending that you can't specifically outlaw explicitly violent and hateful bigotry without someone else outlawing your own peaceful ideology is the mother of all slippery slope fallacies and is almost exclusively trotted out by people who agree with a lot of the ideology of the bigots.

There's nobody forcing us to go down any "bad path" just because we protect minorities from extremists. Just like there's NOT always two valid sides to an issue (see for example flat earthers, young earth creationists and other science deniers), you don't have to ban democracy in order to ban fascism.

You cannot have equality for everyone if you allow intolerance to exist. You have to be intolerant to the intolerant in order to preserve a tolerant society.

but stop at equality for everyone, not suppression of those you may disagree with

Equality for everyone requires the suppression of those who would take away that equality, otherwise you eventually lose equality for everyone. This is similar to how maximizing freedom for everyone requires restricting your individual freedom to harm others, because in doing so you remove their freedoms. Your individual freedom is less, but the total amount of freedom in the system is greater for it.

Furthermore, it is not a moral failing, or even a difficult moral quandary, to suppress people for their actions and choices. We do it all the time to murderers and other criminals, or even people who don't shower. This can be done in multiple ways, including ways that do not involve state power. We frequently use social means to suppress people, for good or bad. A society simply works that way. And if they don't like it, they can simply choose to stop trying to take away equality; I cannot similarly choose to stop being the kind of person they want to take equality away from.

To protect equality we must win every fight; to lose it, they need only win once. Everybody is protected by equality so long as they believe in it. I do not believe that those who do not believe in equality should be extended its benefits, for they will seek to destroy it from within like a parasite.

Now hold on. Nobody said not tolerating meant suppressing. It means opposing.

That.... that's bigot rhetoric, and is full circle to the issue here. "You can't call me out for using the N word because MAH FREE SPEACH"

I agree with you about free speech -- and I would also argue that it extends to forums wanting freedom to choose what they contain.

There's always other forums. Private forums controlling their content isn't silencing. That's not how it works.

That is equally vague. What constitutes harm?

Any action or inaction that physically, financially, or mentally damages another human being through malice or negligence.

who defines what harm is?

In a democracy? The people.

Belief happens in the mind. We don’t want to go down the road or thought crimes.

If you believe hurting a group of people, for any reason, is righteous you're more likely to commit crimes against that group. If we're going to start talking about slippery slopes, let's talk about the slippery slope of allowing hate to take root and spread in any society and how that's turned out in the past.