I kinda don't want to engage further in this conversation, but I don't want to leave you on read so to speak.

You had me go back and check and the .world admins did provide evidence of users planning to break .world rules in each defederation announcement post. You’re free to disagree with their conclusions but you’re wrong when you say they provided no evidence

In the post about defederating Hexbear, the entire thread was in response to a post by a Hexbear admin calling for good behavior, and .world admin was rather deliberately misinterpreting and quoting them in bad faith. I read both of them, and while the Hexbear post was like "I know you all want to troll the libs, but please don't do that, it will suck for everyone and it'll get us defederated", all that the .world admin seemed to understand was "hey, time to troll the libs!". I know it was a deliberate misinterpretation rather than an honest misunderstanding because the .world post was leaving out the many parts of the Hexbear post where the admin was explicitly calling for civility.

The Hexbear post went off in a tangent I didn't really understand where they talked about a few of their political views, and .world took that as a weird example of extremism that I also didn't quite get, claiming that stuff such as opposing NATO is extremist. Admitedly, I haven't gone back to that post, so I'm saying this from memory. Feel free to correct me. But sure, in that case, they did at least point to something as an excuse for defederation, even if wildly misinterpreted.

But when I said that they weren't providing evidence for hate speech I was talking about the Lemmygrad defederation announcement specifically, where they claimed that the reason for defederation was hate speech rather than trolling, bad behavior etc. In there, they did claim hate speech multiple times, but not once did they provide an example of that. Which is what I was talking about.

Besides that, you sound like you’re sitting on the fence on whether or not they are hateful

I'm not. They're not hateful. Calling for direct action in the form of violence towards the wealthy and towards genocidal governments such as Israel does not qualify as hate speech, because they are not considered protected groups. You are free to argue that they are misguided, or even dangerous, and it would be a legitimate disagreement, but hate speech is a concept with a rather strict legal definition. You cannot just consider stuff such as "eat the rich" or "death to israel" as hate speech.

I have receipts of the admins cheering on the Tiananmen Square massacre because it was a western plot or painting the CCP’s treatment of Uighur’s as a simple necessary anti-terrorism action rather than ethnic cleansing. Please don’t willfully look the other way because they don’t outright yell “gas the Jews”.

Irrelevant. My point in this argument isn't that they don't do this, it's that the .world admins should have cited specific instances of this happening in the sticky post they made about defeding Lemmygrad. That said, a lot of the time people claim to have seen this, either the context is a lot more nuanced than that, or they are circlejerking and roleplaying the "tankie" stereotype. Specifically with the Tiananmen Square thing, it's more likely the latter. My own experience lurking Lemmygrad is that people in there actually don't like China much either, so I'm a bit surprised that .worlders keep saying that they do.

I also question why a “circlejerk” community pointing out the ridiculous shit said by leadership and regular posters on the instances isn’t valid

Circlejerk communities are by design unfair. They crop stuff out of context to laugh at it. It's funny, but it's not at all rigorous and may not be cited setiously. A lot of the time it's screenshots of posts that have either been removed, downvoted, or there is a reply calling bullshit that has been cropped out of the image, and these are outliers to the community that are treated as the average opinion. Other times, the context is all there and the funny bit is just the disagreement between the circlejerk community and the source material, but circlejerk posts are ALWAYS presented misleadingly. The point is to laugh at it, not to do some rigorous examination of the line of reasoning.

Anecdotal, but a few days ago I saw a .world user claimed they had met someone on Lemmygrad that stated that being gay was imperialistic, and they actually did link to it. The link was pointing to a c/tankiejerk thread with a screenshot about a post that did actually say that. Granted, the post itself was bullshit. However, as shown in the screenshot itself, the post was downvoted, and the submitter was... someone with the @lemmy.world suffix. It's okay that this post was screenshot and uploaded to c/tankiejerk to laugh at it, but it's not valid to extrapolate that post's content to the entirety of Lemmygrad when it was already downvoted and posted by a .world user in the first place. This is the kind of bad faith I'm referring to that revolves around these defederations IMO.