The quote from Mills assumes the "other side" has reasons, or is willing to argue in good faith.

I have no problem with conservative communities. MAGA isn't just a conservative community, it's a hate-driven cult. We already know their reasons, they have nothing else to contribute to a meaningful discourse.

You know they're just going to ban anyone who goes in there, that isn't MAGA, right?

Why should anyone be forced to listen to Nazi bullshit. Fuck magats. Nazis have only one place in the world, 6 feet under.

MAGA and “just conservative” are not the same.

Self-labeling as MAGA is denoting full cult of personality and fealty to Trump. Add the online-ness element, plus the small size of Lemmy in general, and you’re concentrating that presence into a toxic sludge that seeps into the rest of the fediverse a la 4chan/Xhitter trolls.

“MAGA” is not going to change their minds on anything, nor are they looking to meaningfully change ours. MAGA does not argue in good faith, or based on rationality or policy. Red-hatters enter non-red-hat spaces for the purposes of intimidation, feeling superior, and sowing discord. Then they pat each other on the back for “owning the libs” and continue the cycle.

It’s perfectly reasonable to not want to federate with relentless trolling and become a Nazi bar by means of association.

I was going to say something about wanting to avoid echo chambers and then... I read the post history from the admin over there. sighs

I think it's appropriate to defederate. Doing so doesn't stop their admin, or anyone else, from creating an account on any other instance. Play by the rules of civility in the fediverse and no worries. If they can't, then it will be dealt with via bans.

If they want a maga island to themselves, then so be it.

Mills didn't live through fucking First and Second World War.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance : Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most imwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force ; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument ; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself out- side the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Popper, Karl R. The Open Society and Its Enemies: Volume 1, The Spell of Plato. Routledge, 1945

American conservatives arent good faith debaters.

The 1990’s called and want to know if you’ll be a guest on Rush Limbaugh. You won’t actually get to say anything, so no pressure.

The downvotes here are stupid. I have a conservative friend and we always ask each other questions about why each side feels one way or another. It is a good way to find common ground. It is also a good way to understand what is going on.