Nobody said I’m always right. What I said is: these are my standards, and I will enforce them on my server. That’s not about being universally “right.” It’s about being consistent with the principles I believe in.
While at the same time passing judgment and adopting a disdainful tone towards [those who] disagreed with your opinion. That is the most objectionable part.
For example, in regard to people who (perfectly reasonably) responded negatively towards your private messages, you said:
Where I misjudged things—and I see this clearly now—was in thinking that private messages would actually reduce conflict. They don’t. If someone shows signs of being toxic, or openly supports toxic behaviour, it’s best to take them at their word. A conversation in that situation won’t lead anywhere productive.
And the only reason you had for calling those users "toxic" is because they showed some sign of disagreement with your previously unpublished and unknown policy? They are not the toxic ones in this scenario.
A “bro” is the person who laughs at cruelty because it’s entertaining. [...]
I mean really? Talk about hyperbole. Any one of us could easily come up with 10 negative and 10 positive connotations for the word "bro", or "sis" or basically anything else. All you seem to be doing is mis-characterising the use of a commonplace word as problematic based on nothing but your own imaginings, and then using that mis-characterisation to vilify users you disagree with on the topic.
If that’s not to your taste, the beauty of federation is that you don’t have to engage with me at all.
As an anarchist, rigid hierarchies and those who create them aren't to my taste.