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.

You are a deeply unserious person with a deeply unserious attitude.

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?

States always protect their own interests. It is the fact of their nature. Complaining about it, or attacking those who express such an understanding, is counterproductive.

NATO expansion was wanted by European governments, many of them right wing, in order for an opportunity to share in the fruits of US imperialism. NATO expansion is very much tied to the military-industrial complex, which seeks to expand the sales of weaponry manufactured in the US. The weapons purchased by other states contributes to the burden of the working class in such states, who provide the labor that funds such sales.

The inevitable effects of the expansion has been to escalate geopolitical tensions, which, as plainly seen before our eyes with the devastation in Ukraine, has been profoundly harmful to the working class.

Insistence that the US has no intrinsic will to expand, but is compelled otherwise, is absurd beyond imagination. The US is the global imperialist hegemon, with interference in very corner of the world, including military bases in dozens of countries. I am sorry, but such a claim in particular is one you should reconsider seriously.

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.

Chomsky sat on an airplane, and criticized NYT reporting on atrocities in Cambodia.

Neither are bad acts.

His position on the Russian invasion is a standard leftist position, which includes a proper criticism of US imperialism and NATO expansion as antecedents of the war, in contrast to the US nationalist position of demonizing and blaming Putin, while also denying or glorifying US and NATO expansion.

Your information is not accurate, and your judgments are not thoughtful.

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 propagating misinformation. Chomsky challenged some sloppy reporting by the NYT. He never denied the atrocities.

The degree Chomsky is becoming demonized even in anarchist spaces is very childish and irresponsible.

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.

If you think my explanation is “incoherent ramblings”, then you are not a serious person capable of discussing constructively.

The uncomplicated theme across my earlier comments has been that you discuss dishonestly, which becomes increasingly evident as discussion progresses.

I tried to address your misconceptions about straw man arguments, but when they were laid plain you deflected to insults.

Everyone’s experience is important.

You are rather severely distorting the meanings of terms.

The worst thing he did was sit on a plane.

Seriously, get a grip.

Radlib is simply a correct term for someone entering leftist spaces trying to inject liberalism.

Solidarity is not ignoring very serious political differences.

Liberals talk all day about tolerance, but they avoid solidarity and target leftism.