Here’s my take on it. I had to deal with this a few times in spaces I control.

I feel you on not wanting to be capricious or ban people you don’t agree with. I actually think that having “enemy” points of view easily accessible for people to talk to or amongst each other is a really good thing. I wish there were more “conservative” voices in the discourse that made some kind of sense for example, although that’s a pretty tough sell at this point because “conservative” has become synonymous with dangerous violence and total dishonesty at this point. But the issue with realcaseyrollins or other people like them isn’t exactly the point of view. The issue is how they approach the social contract with their postings.

I think Lemmy’s incentives and overall structure have led people to this entitled mindset under which they’ve got an absolute right to be part of the social interaction, as long as they don’t violate “the rules” beyond a reasonable doubt with a lot of debate and abundance of due process and benefit of the doubt. As long as they don’t cross certain incredibly loose standards of behavior (or other standards which are bizarrely and pointlessly strict), they’ve got a right to stay forever and interact however they want. I don’t actually think that’s a healthy way to build a community.

For the small number of times that this has come up, I’ve opened a conversation with the person. “Hey, it kind of seems like such-and-such is an issue with what you’re posting. What’s your take on it? How do you respond if someone raised that particular aspect as a problem for the community?”

Every time, the reaction I’ve gotten has been along the lines of “waargbrlgbs fuck fuck you fuck you I’m going to post it anyway argargarbawe you can’t stop me.” I’m sort of paraphrasing obviously. But that’s the vibe. Kind of “I don’t have to justify it, now fuck off and let me post.” At that point, I felt totally comfortable taking action against them. Because it’s not censorship, it’s just… I don’t know, decency. Enforcing normal human interaction. The modern internet with its anonymity and its free accounts for whoever wants one, has entitled people to act with this kind of impunity. Experience has taught them that the social contract doesn’t apply to them. They don’t have to pretend they’re here for a good reason, they don’t have to answer questions or talk like a reasonable person. If they just want to broadcast slop and abuse, they can. I do feel like someone who’s in control of some little part of the space has a responsibility to remove that stuff.

I’m not trying to tell you what to do by any means, you can handle it however you like. Like I say, I really feel you as far as not removing the viewpoint. I just don’t think that the viewpoint is really the issue with a lot of the posters that are problems in my opinion, and I don’t think “the rules” as they are commonly understood on Lemmy are the answer for building a good place.

Edit: Also, you’re definitely at risk of becoming the Nazi bar if you are not already. I took one look at the communities and, as you saw, came to the conclusion “whoa welp okay fuck this place.” Again, not because of the political bent of the content, but because of who was involved and their modes of interactions with other people that I’ve observed. I feel like it would be a lot more healthy to build up some kind of intentional good interactions and communities, however small, than it would be to have it dominated by the people who are having issues with getting banned in other places and just getting clowned on all the time.