YDI

You are a disrespectful buffoon who abuses language to make yourself seem righteous.

You talk a big talk about the right to have your own opinion, but everyone with an opinion other than yours you hold in outright contempt.

The point is to acknowledge that your community depends for its existence on the resources generated by those you choose to antagonize. Too much antagonism would cause the entire system to collapse, along with it your community. You are acting from within the frame of a bubble that is in fact only imaginary.

I will add that I feel the isolationist attitude is misguided.

You could operate an unfederated instance. However, if you are integrated into the Fediverse, then you are benefiting as a community from the large collection of other instances with which you are federated. Such advantages are offered with an expectation of treating everyone participating with the greatest reasonable consideration, and of preventing unnecessary antagonism.

Freedom of association is not freedom from every unwanted responsibility. It is necessary to acknowledge that our complex systems of interdependence require, for their function, responsible participation. Only considering your inner circle is distorting the meaning, toward your own advantage, of the principles you advocate.

I feel the analogy is rather weak.

I very much would like to understand whether it has caused any actual harm.

May I ask, what is the harm in the user casting such votes?

Even if all of it is true, as you say, preemptively banning users who never posted feels very abrasive, even aggressive. I am afraid it may tend to engender negative sentiments about movements, by creating an impression that anarchists or leftists generally tend to be unwelcoming or uncompromising, just as might be actually the case for tankies. We want to maintain the appearance as a group of being open to discussion.

The question arises of whether preemptive banning is constructive, considering the power remains to ban someone later, as actually needed, as well as to remove objectionable content if submitted.

I was responding to your explanation as presented.

My own feeling is that not giving anyone a chance to take responsibility works against our interests of fostering inclusivity and responsibility. It is essential to keep open space for discussion with those who may be misguided or unthoughtful but are otherwise generally reasonable.

Your own personal rights are not central to your acting as a moderator.

As a moderator, you represent the interests of the community.

I understand your position, but not everyone considers the matter to be equally unambiguous.

You are harming the narrative that Canada is categorically friendly and peaceful.

One redeeming feature of the history is that refugees of slavery in the US were able to find protection in Canada, though it was often quite difficult for them to reach.

Many of the comments are trying to appraise whether Ukraine authentically has something akin to a “Nazi problem”.

The most basic observations are that Ukraine has Nazis and that all Nazis are a problem. The same is true of other nations.

Every source either will seek to exaggerate or to minimize the severity and relevance of the problem. Simply, even by someone of greatest possible moral purity, there is no objective or neutral means to appraise the matter.

A pro-Ukraine community naturally will take every measure to repel content appearing to vindicate Russian nationalism.

Three days of only touching grass would be for many a healthy recess.

If you feel burdened by the disruption, you might file an appeal. I believe appeals are claimed to be reviewed individually by real humans, but you should not expect any grand insights.

Fortunately, there usually seems to be a surplus of useless idiots.

I know, but the context is a pretense that liberal politicians are benevolent.

Your attitude is exactly the one that has brought us to the rise of Mein Orangutan, of demanding no more than whatever seems slightly more favorable than the worst case possible.

Advancing conditions for the base of the population would depend on much more than simply voting in national elections for the Democratic Party. In fact, it requires looking beyond the two-party machine, by organizing local campaigns, worker unions, and direct action.

The Democratic Party is not coming to save us.

No one is coming to save us.

We can be saved only by doing the work to take care of each other, to protect each other, and to relate to each other as members of community.

Imperialist atrocities are excusable when they are ordered by someone claiming to be queer friendly.

Licking boots is fun when they are worn by someone claiming to be queer friendly.

Trump does nothing himself. Sham justice carries the support of the entire political establishment.

It was never much more than a tool to repress the poor and marginalized.