I’m not sure how anyone could think that a massive terror attack including rape and kidnapping by the government of a state is not justified pretense for a declaration of war. This is textbook and I’m not sure how Hamas and you could expect anything less.

That has no bearing on them starting the war. Don’t start wars and you are far less likely to suffer wars.

My point here is not that I am. My point is that others would. The fact that you still do not understand that after reiterating it repeatedly in every single reply indicates to me that you are either not reading my replies or not in this discussion in good faith. You are what this community should leave behind. There was way too much of this on Reddit.

Asking for proof of this is like asking for proof that the Constitution exists. It’s a very common thing I referenced. Western anarchism has a more positive history but largely linked to furtherment of the cause over actual progression of liberties.

Cuba: https://www.thedailybeast.com/fidel-castros-horrific-record-on-gay-rights

USSR: https://www.thecollector.com/harry-whyte-gay-communist-writes-to-stalin-soviet-union/

CCP: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0268580918812265

My point in bringing it up is that it’s extremely easy to craft a narrative that starts including relatively positive forms of speech in with the banning. That includes these little forums and your approach is exactly what happened on Reddit eventually leading to the current influx of members here now. The second you start restricting speech is when the forum starts consolidating power.

Donald Trump was elected president primarily because he could control his messaging and direct different narratives to different demographics. He was unable to do that as president so he lost the next election. By encouraging the siloing of information sources, you enable that behavior.

I don’t want Nazis but the best way to turn them is not by sending them into a forum where they are left unchecked.

Yes, I started with the reasons why left-leaning movements have been restricted historically right out of the gate. It is not coddling bigots. It is providing context on why any form of radical idea is restricted, including ideas that we tend to celebrate in these communities. Communist propaganda has historically put fourth that anything that is not communist is inherently fascist. Is that your definition of fascism? Are folks allowed to talk about the French protests? To many they are based in fascism.

In my opinion, you are literally promoting groupthink and closing yourself off to ideas by attempting to ban content that you disagree with based on your own definitions. Life is a little more nuanced when you are not talking about specific issues by which you know the full context.

Also, is it a relatively new community or is it an established one that you want to preserve the culture of? I am getting very mixed messages from you.

I provided four reasons why this was relevant and you jumped from communism to whataboutism? Talk about being intellectually lazy (Or a state-sponsored account)

There is a decent argument historically that communism and other left movements are extremist, racist, and anti-lgbtq. When you start banning concepts, you open your communities up to several things.

1. Group think
2. Banning of other radical ideologies that you may agree with
3. You alienate those people from exposure to better concepts
4. You jump start compaction cycles for large scale propaganda organizations that could lead to actual violence