poVoq

Yes they didn't understand it either, but you have to keep in mind which community they commented in.

Because you don't need evidence to believe something? Especially if you don't care to look for such evidence?

Na gut wenn es um ausländische Regierungsoberhäupter geht scheinbar doch etwas weniger "staatstragend".

I am also doubtful that hidden pleasure at seeing other suffer is the prime motivator.

More likely they are of the mistaken believe that punishment can prevent future crimes and the stronger the punishment the better for that. But while this might be true for minor stuff like petty theft, this believe is generally not supported by evidence.

I can't speak for the exact reasoning, but my impression is more like this:

The OP made a post explicitly about how voting is not enough and that direct action is needed (a very uncontroversial position for Anarchists) in an Anarchist community and because it is upvoted a lot and hits the all feed, some non-anarchist liberals show up in the comments and Reply-Bro their off-topic views about how it is absolutely crucial to vote for Harris and spout their various hypocritical justifications as of why. As a result the OP gets angry at those uninvited comments and deletes some of them and closes the thread and also gives a temp ban to some especially argumentative people that clearly didn't get the message.

I find this pretty sensible over all, as this isn't about not welcoming "all forms of pragmaticism or utilitarianism or philosophicisim within anarchist ideals" but rather about showing people the door who are clearly not anarchists nor seem to be interested in learning about it.

There are certainly many things that could be improved about Lemmy's moderation tools and general setup, I agree.

However the core argument is not about "talking with people who don’t agree with you is a valuable thing to do". There was no real disagreement about any topic where an exchange of ideas would be beneficial to both sides. Unless you have infinite patience, there is no point in arguing with people that don't even realize how hypocritical their position is, in fact usually doing so only results in them digging in their heels and arguing even stronger as you are likely challenging some of their deeply held believes. I believe this is what happened, and your reaction in the original post itself and even more so in making this new thread to complain about someone not having infinite patience with you pretty much proves that.

No, the argument is something like this: you can vote (or not vote) however you like and voting strategically or for the lesser evil is a compromise many Anarchists make, but you are lying to yourself and others if you claim that this is anything but a painful compromise. Jill Stein is irrelevant for that question.

No one said you were intentionally trolling or making bad faith arguments. What you did was randomly enter a post you disagreed with and started an off-topic argument with the OP using emotionally loaded language to justify something that is in the end just a very mundane lesser evil decision. I am old enough to have seen this spiel out many times during every other election cycle and I find it quite offensive to be exposed to such arguments lacking even the slightest bit of self-reflection, especially in what is supposed to be an Anarchist community.

This is a take that sounds good at first, but quickly shatters when it comes in contact with reality.

Mods are not some mythical aloof figure that hoovers over everything to make impartial decisions but are rather more often the primary posters and "content creators" (horrible term) in a community. This is something we encourage on our instance as we want to foster an organic community with original content and not just be a faceless link aggregator.

Add to this that it is really difficult to find additional volunteer mods for communities, and the person that starts a community is often the only and typically somewhat unwilling moderator of it as well. In thematic communities they are also often the person in the mod team with the most expert knowledge on a topic to decide if something is misinformation etc. or not.

Am Nachmittag traf das spanische Königspaar zu einem Besuch im Katastrophengebiet ein. Felipe VI. und seine Frau Letizia besuchten gemeinsam mit dem spanischen Regierungschef Pedro Sánchez die besonders stark betroffene 27.000-Einwohner-Gemeinde Paiporta westlich der Küstenmetropole Valencia, wie auf Fernsehbildern zu sehen war. Anschließend stand nach Angaben des Königshauses die Gemeinde Chiva auf ihrem Programm.

Die Tageschau und Hofberichterstattung 🫠

Kein Wort dazu das der König alles andere als willkommen war: https://apnews.com/article/spain-floods-king-protest-mud-a8525bd82cf4cc3fc6273d535cbb9d66

You are mixing up different things here. I was also not so happy about the high number of low quality memes they posted in a short period of time inciting nothing but anger shortly before a very emotionally loaded election. I mentioned to the mod privately that I found this quite trollish at this exact point in time and they agreed to stop.

The specific post in question was maybe one of the less bad ones (Greta's take is pretty sensible IMHO) and due to the high number of upvotes it had the usual drive-by comments by non-community members that were mostly off-topic, did nothing but stoke the flames and were also partially offensive*. Maybe the mod overacted somewhat with deleting most of them, but locking the thread was absolutely the right call after it derailed and handing out a temporary (!) community ban to a very argumentative drive-by poster is IMHO good practice to defuse the situation.

*I agree with the mod that you can vote for your lesser evil or strategically whatever, but there is no need to provide lengthy ideological justifications to convince yourself and others that it was something other than a lesser evil vote.

How dare you taking away jobs from the people that put your groceries in plastic bags at Walmart /s