This thread was started by an OP with pretty much zero posting history, who responded with vague answers and a lot of 'Lol'-ing, and was ... interesting in subject matter.
Is it really likely a Science teacher would randomly use the analogy of a concentration camp?
(For what it's worth, if this were a RL example, I would agree with Noble. However, I truly wonder if it is ...)
I think I'm pretty safe in posting this, now.
'Free speech' is an ideal. Most of us act, all the time, to moderate our speech in consideration of the audience we are addressing, and with a mind to the actions we wish to effect. This is reproduced at the level of society: speech acts are moderated, through law. All of us accept membership of communities on the understanding that there are limitations to what we can say and do, and membership of a community is granted on the understanding we accept those limitations in return for the benefits of membership (one of those benefits being that others are similarly limited).
So, given this, think about what you are being asked to accept on this thread, what sort of community is established. Personally, I suspect the OP thought it was "Lolz" to get a load of women - many of whom would be teachers - to say that trivialising the Holocaust (and let's not be naive, this wasn't about concentration camps in America or the Boer War) was OK in certain circumstances.
Who is that speech act - and the resulting speech acts - supposed to include in the community? Who was it supposed to subsequently exclude? What sort of speech community was it supposed to establish, with what sorts of rules?
Think about it.
And think about the discussion it subsequently generated. A whole load of "Snowflakes!!" comments.
I'm really fed up of this. We're not idiots. We know that there is a real push-back against attempts to widen participation in public life, and to do so by making people aware that speech acts are not neutral. Speech acts create speech communities, and organise the boundaries of political and social communities. They include and exclude by way of the rules they establish and reproduce.
That attempt to widen participation is often uncomfortable - particularly if you are being asked to examine patterns of behaviour that you are used to following unreflectively. The push-back is also uncomfortable.
I'll be absolutely honest. I found this thread very frustrating, partly because I found MN's guidelines quite inhibiting when it came to discussing what might actually be going on with this thread.