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?

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.

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.

I very patiently and politely tried steer the conversation beyond the counterproductive space of your singlemindedly trying to prove yourself right.

There, I’ve added one more comment, so it is no longer necessary that the last one is on a sour note.

I feel like it presents leftists as being as smug and snobbish as reactionaries.

You’re an insufferable child, completely irresponsible and locked in narrow loops of self importance.

The discussion now completely lacks any chance of becoming constructive.

You can take your animosity elsewhere.

You know what you wrote. Stop being obstinate.

I stand by my characterizations, regarding the allegations you repeated, as well as regarding issues more personal.

The truth is we don’t know what happened, and you find it hard to accept a world with uncertainty and nuance.

You find it hard to accept that there is not always a clear path to proving yourself right and proving someone else wrong.

Respecting the October 7 attacks, limited details are reliably known.

It is known that both Hamas and Israeli combatants perpetrated attacks, and it is known that many people were killed, including many Israelis.

It is known that Hamas taking hostages was planned as a important component of the mission, and that it was successful.

The claims of sexual assault have now been almost completely dismissed, many as completely lacking credibility, others as not supported adequately by evidence. Israel’s dishonest and obstructive conduct has obscured the truth, probably irredeemably.

Even generously accepting some of the evidence offered for sexual assault, it would remain unknown whether such acts were spontaneous choices by individuals, or ordered by higher tiers of command.

Furthermore, it is unknown how many of the Israelis who were killed died as a consequence of Israeli fire.

Regardless of your sense of intention, I feel it is right that you were called out for acting as mouthpiece of Israel and Zionism.

Intention is not normally considered a necessary condition for the characterization as a straw man.

Regardless of the specific term, any misrepresentation or misinterpretation is equally counterproductive regardless of intention.

Instead of defending your intention, perhaps try reflecting on whether you made any mistakes.

Moreover, the one who offers an argument is the one whose intended meaning is relevant in discussing the argument. When someone claims you have attacked a straw man, it is best to reengage with your own intention of genuinely understanding the intention of the argument you attacked. Instead, you have dug in your heels, only interested in finding a way to prove yourself right, and to prove someone else wrong.

What is it you want to prove for yourself?

You seem to be searching for some straightforward and unambiguous proof that you are right, whereas I consider it completely right that you were called out for acting as a mouthpiece of Israel and Zionism.

It would be best for you to let go of your need for the world to be explained in terms that are black and while.

At least one thing really is simple, though. If you want not to be called a mouthpiece of Israel, then you should stop acting as one.

Something is either debunked, or it isn’t. That’s simply not a complex issue.

The actual events, and ascertaining them reliably, obviously are very complicated.

The simplest way to address your question is still relatively simple, but less simple than you pretend.

The question you insist is simple conflates two different things. One is the fact of fatalities occurring during conflict, and the other is the Israeli narrative as parroted uncritically.

One is accepted fact, which no one contests, and one is debunked propaganda.

You should be adequately thoughtful and sincere to acknowledge the distinction.

Because if you did, you’d have to decide whether to go with… I wonder which it is.

You should stop wondering, and start acknowledging that you have constructed a rather absurd false dichotomy.

It says a lot about you that I addressed your question directly and appropriately, several times now in succession, yet you still act too dense to understand.