Err, ok, I guess. Mods making stupid rules for community engagement are theirs to make. If you disagree you either don't break them or go elsewhere. Also, are these facts being raised within a topical discussion or dragging it out of context?

Going in and saying the stuff they've stated is explicitly banned (regardless of its political or irrational nature) and then getting banned is a rather interesting way to claim censorship.

You grant that some censorship is warranted. Then you argue that you, and not someone else, should be deciding what censorship is warranted.

Do you see the problem there?

> Then you argue that you, and not someone else, should be deciding what censorship is warranted.

Where did I argue that? I just pointed out that what reddit is doing is censorship, and that painting it as only banning spam and vulgarity is false and deceptive.

You're free to argue that they have a right to censor, and even that they're using that right appropriately, just don't lie about how they're using it.

> Where did I argue that?

It's implied. You agree that some censorship is appropriate but disagree with what that is, suggesting that you know better than someone else which censorship is appropriate.