I am not engaged enough to be able to fully judge the bans and moderations as fair or unfair. And I never read the rules. Just as a disclaimer. Here is what I think anyways.

It is always wrong to censor people on an anonymous forum. Sure, you cannot scream fire in a theatre or incite violence. But on here? I cannot think of an example where I would be for censoring anybody, even if the content of the post hurts somebodys feelings. That is actually a huge part of how we grow as people, to have our feelings hurt and still be able to function. A cushy bubble for your brain is the antithesis of resilience.

Also, someone posted these as forum rules: "Racist, sexist, hateful, toxic, or otherwise demeaning comments will not be tolerated." What if (just as an example) someone is for abortion and comments that, but another person thinks this is "hateful, toxic and demeaning" (to unborn children and anybody who regrets having had an abortion)? What exactly counts as "toxic" and "demeaning"?
-These rules are completely vague and their application seems arbitrary.

But those rules are not exactly applied on a personal whim, their application is not completely arbitrary, because they are applied in a certain socio-political climate. Every get-together of a number of people develops this. This website has one too and as other commenters have alluded to, that climate is not exactly a hallmark of diversity and individuality when it comes to hot button issues people love to dissagree about. Such a climate assures that vague rules are interpreted in a particular way and not in another. I am glad that many people can see how bent towards one narrow path the climate around moderation on this website is and that a thread like this exists. Let's see for how long.

I'll close with this thought: People demanding tolerance and inclusivity are seldom tolerant and inclusive themselves. "Like, why cant you just not be hateful, oh my god? It is not that difficult, just shut up if you know your opinion is not to our liking."

I do think there is a issue of certain kinds of extreme statements getting a more lax response due to them coming from a place that the mods align with. It's not a major issue since moderation on here is overall decently lax which I like but there have certainly been times where I see someone say stuff and get a small response or even no response at all while someone else gets a bigger response for something more minor. This caused Chrkeller to take a break a few months ago and seems to have just caused Zippy6 to do the same and that is concerning considering the number of active users so I do think things being somewhat more lax would be good for the long term health of the site.

Now this I might actually be able to agree with. It doesn't seem like a huge issue, but I have wondered about this every now and then.

I feel like most of the moderation I've seen done in the politics thread isn't really about what people are arguing, but instead about the fact that they are engaging in a way which isn't conducive to debate. For example, there was one user who I recall would often go into the politics thread to post controversial takes (I don't recall their name or if they are still around). Upon getting several replies, they would say they enjoyed ragebaiting people but didn't want to waste time arguing. Rinse repeat about once a week. I believe that person was banned from the thread. Good.

The things some people are willing to do for their enjoyment...