"So, are you saying opinions you disagree and/or view (rightly or not) as hastily composed will result in folks or their posts being removed from the group?"

Kmaz, "hasty notions" should tell you about notions that are poorly formulated, because they're hasty notions. I don't know why I'm being taken to be saying something I'm not. I think that at the same time, I'm being written off as something I'm not, and I have to say I'm a little bit pissed off at that, because I don't write others off as part of a minimum level of respect I give to others.

"Hasty" might be conflated with a lot of things, but "haste" always has to do with compromised thinking, and that's why I double down on that word. Webster's dictionary seems to be the chief reference for that word, because I use American English.

When something is contradicting to clear facts, a nonsequitur, or other form of inaccurate or specious statement, it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. Either a view is accurate, or it's not, and it's going to vary in the demeanor of accuracy. Sometimes a central point is accurate, but supporting detail is not, and so on.

Sometimes, it's just a malformed statement, which makes for a fallacious argument with otherwise accurate thinking. Sometimes, the statement simply reads like it was written by an idiot, in which case I might react at different levels.

Sometimes, the view reflects an assholeish delineation of character in the person (for example, social darwinist views justifying the stripping of the poor might reflect anti-social/dark triad tendencies in the person)

I think that many people have a reasonable tolerance for nonsense; when I said not to be surprised if hasty notions would be met with regulatory action, I don't think that I was talking about anything unreachable, or any special case.

I personally don't like views that aren't objective, and rooted in socially liberal sensibilities, including the open discussion of ideas, along with free thought. However that doesn't mean I will take regulatory action on those views because I don't see any ethics in thought-policing, and that is totally separate on my stance of institutions because tolerant societies cannot play host to intolerant views. Authoritarian views not only affected me negatively personally, but they are a way to take a person and twist them into a husk of a self. People who are comfortable with authoritarian structures are okay with being programmed to have a mind for only one or two things, and leave the course of their life to be determined by the collective, so they can be harvested for the utility of political factions and their organizations, and then rewarded for as long as they conform to expectations of character, assumptions, personality and belief. It's a dehumanizing way of thinking.

Some of them may benefit but I see more potential in the freely associating, liberal lifestyle because people who fail to see the value of that mistakenly think that how one occupies their time has no efect on who they become.

Authoritarianism is a way of making everyone follow the same rules so that only certain kinds of people are politically valuable, and that's why authoritarianism doesn't work in civilization.

That being said, I don't understand why you're even asking this question in the first place, I think what was communicated was very plain. This group does not tolerate authoritarian regulations. There will be no "You have to please me, think my way, or be like me, or be pricked" in this group.

That is how idiots and jerks operate, and I don't like either of those groups of people.

Before the days of "Your brain is what you say on the internet, and what I make of it", there used to be an understanding that wherever a person is, they should observe a minimum level of social skills that involve rubbing people the right way in the right manner and degree appropriate for the scenario that is already there. But these days, it seems like every little thing needs to be explained, because of this game of "How can I use that person's incidental behavior against them?". It's an immature, troglodyte game. It needs to stop.

@DZhukovin

On second thought, I've deleted my original response and will post this one:

Because of your unusual use of the word "regulatory", I was seeking a clarification as to whether, if a person spouts what you consider (rightly or wrongly) to be nonsense, then are you saying:

a) a person should expect to be disagreed with strongly.
or
b) a person should expect to be removed from the group.
or
c) some combination of a) and possibly eventually b)
d) something else.

Is there any way you could just answer a straightforward rules/administrative request for clarification in a simple way, and without all the other stuff? Is it a), b), c) or d)?

Background:
Almost all people (certainly including myself) at some point spout nonsense about policy and politics. Some probably more than others. Almost all people (certainly including myself), at some point are poor judges of whether someone else has spouted nonsense about policy and politics. With that in mind:
For me
a) is fine,
b) means it would be unintelligent for me to stay and invest time in group discussion, risking the possibility that I could even invest years in fruitful discussion only (very probably) to be cut off one day.
c) is a bit grey area, but probably not promising for significant time investment on my part. .
d) is unclear.

@kmaz

I'm picking d) for the first question, for "something else", and I will explain why:

I don't pretend like I'm not making an idiot out of myself by acting rashly towards others. That's why I think it's an appropriate group policy to think of the reasonable response to an offense, meaning that de-platforming, silencing, and other insults are probably going to be considered more extreme.

I don't make it my business to really care what other people think, but this group needed rules, and they needed sensible ones to keep it from being a dumpster fire of people who are:

1. Unwilling to discuss ideas intelligently.

2. Unwilling to learn about politics.

3. Persist in their stupidity about politics, such as getting caught up in who to vote for, demanding that other people think a certain way, causing spats, etc.

4. Generally just being stupid. The group does its best NOT to magnetize destructive members by making itself plain, and having the right rules.

I don't know how many brain cells you assign to the person you're talking to, but you might want to put those details on the table, because I'm becoming irritated at your persistence with this insinuated assumption that I might not be able to tell what is nonsense, or not.

Now, I understand that you might not like this group. That being said, no one says you have to remain here. When you need to leave, leave. When you need to join, re-join. The last time I checked, I never said I owned you, or something.

Also, I'm finding this conversation to really be running on, and you might want to start asking less idiotic questions. I ran the readability analysis on the group description. It shouldn't have been unclear, and I don't see why you've assumed to accost me over it.

Go and bother somebody else.