I'm not the user you were speaking to, but if nothing else, I appreciate a vocal response from administration.

More sites need transparent moderation.

And I'm not trying to kiss ass, I'm genuinely kind of a shithead who hates authority, because authority tends toward corruption inevitably.

I appreciate this response. My answers:

You did go down the pyramid it's not like you did nothing wrong and you have had a warning before.

I remember the warning, though I see my comments as much more informative - and thus not so far down the pyramid - than the comments by others. For example, my point to the Indian user was to point out - as clearly as I could - that he too (by virtue of his agreement with those who think mixed race people are dumber than whites) could be a victim of others who don't like mixed-race or non-white people. I am not sure if there is a better, more informative way of pointing this out. The comment was about the username, not anything personal. (I might note that mods on Saidit are never bothered when I get spammed with insults, but that's a different discussion.)

What I don't understand is why it's so important for you to be included in conversations with people you don't seem to respect or agree with on anything?

I have to explain this periodically to Saiditors: I joined Saidit months ago in order to learn about right-wing and alt right points of view, to read the stuff you read, to learn about the commonly used websites here, to see why we all seem to be concerned about the 99% but have very different ideas on how to engage in political solutions, and to see which political solutions anyone would want to discuss (and I've had no responses that include actionable options or voting preferences, or even ideas about revolutions). Just as Saiditors should try to understand what centrists and the left are reading, I should try to understand what Saiditors are reading.

Why do I argue with Saiditors? I try not to make a habit of this, but once an argument starts, I feel it's responsible and respectful to respond to the arguments of others. Also, I want to know more about the reasons for some of the posts. Another reason I respond is because I am sometimes procrastinating with work, while also annoyed with one of the posts, and want to offer a counter-argument.

I wasn't offended when I was banned from latestagecapitalism on reddit.

I am certainly not offended that I am banned from DAR. Of all places to be banned from, it's certainly OK with me to be banned from DAR.

I didn't feel entitled to be in that sub even though there were several topics I wanted to talk to them about.

This is how I feel about DAR. I wanted an opportunity to ask DAR about their views on who to elect in the next election, and how those people can help deliver alt right political solutions. I am genuinely curious about what DAR think of actionable political opportunities.

If you can acknowledge that you went down the pyramid with the indian user we can work with you on shorting or lifting your ban.

I think my first response to him was lower on the pyramid than it should have been, and for reasons noted above, I wanted to make an explicit point about racist approaches. Additional responses were, I had thought, genuine approaches to debates, and not as low on the pyramid as the first response.

Thank you very much for responding.

At some point, DAR will likely be happy to be rid of me, but for what it's worth, I would think it important for Debate Alt Right to welcome debates with the alt right, warts and all. For this reason DAR should be the most free speech sub at Saidit, with fewer rules, not the most rules (and certainly not vague rules about 'authority' and saying someone is wrong). And as we know about Saidit, I am but one of many contrarians here who like to argue and debate. In my view, this is the best part of Saidit, as would be DAR if they could stomach debates.