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.

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.

There is no such thing as fairy society. There are individual fairies, and there are families of fairies.

The Fediverse is a concept that seems to me as real as the Internet or the World Wide Web.

You are continuing to be narrow and obtuse, now seemingly deliberately.

I simply will repeat that “two-state solution” encompasses a broad and open range of concrete possibilities.

Vagueness challenges the particular, narrow representation you insist is universally accepted.

There is no concrete catalog that affirms which representations are “actually existing”. There is rather open discourse with diverse contributions.

You are being overly narrow.

The “two-state solution” is a vague proposal that encompasses a very broad range of concrete possibilities.

One might say it is a range of different proposals all described under a common phrase.

We should not pigeonhole the phrase into one particular, narrow representation insisted as the one “normally understood”.

Simply, I question the narrowness of your characterization.

As insinuated, an objective of full parity among all current occupants of Palestine, settler and Palestinian, including freedom of movement for Palestinians throughout the entire territory, would seem to be sufficient to achieve a dismantlement of settler-colonialism in the region.

“One of those states is Israel” is not a meaningful argument, because it begs the question of which transformations may have been imposed on Israel and the territory.

It’s why OP was banned from other places.

The purpose of the post and community is for others to appraise the justification for the moderator action, not summarily to assume its correctness and then simply to explain its merits.

The link I posted has numerous people explain that advocating for the liberation of Palestine isn’t the same as advocating for a genocide or expulsion of Jews in Israel.

None if it bears on whether advocacy for a “two-state solution” is necessarily Zionism.

You introduced Zionism into the discussion.

I question that advocacy for a “two-state solution” is necessarily Zionism, whereas your complaint rests squarely on such an assumption. The entire settler population being expelled is not feasible. Zionism should not be represented so broadly as to include everyone who is merely practical.

Your grievances about a thread from nine months ago obviously are irrelevant.