The interview was really bad but the mod reacting to criticism by deleting and locking posts and eventually locking the subreddit caused the community to lose trust in the ability of this person as a moderator.
ChapoTrapHouse promulgated marxism, so nope. I've seen enough of that in history. And the fact that it requires violence to implement, was fine with them. Also a no from me.
It also required violence to free slaves in the United States. To say violence is always impermissible sides with whatever violence already takes place. In our times, one example would be that 1 in 5 children that are food insecure on the wealthiest nation in the history of the planet. I want them fed. If it's going to require force to do so I prefer that violence to the slow, boring dystopia of an invisible hand.
There's a long storied tradition of that in the US, such as farmers going armed to foreclosure auctions and preventing sales or acquiring them at pennies to return to the previous owners. Railroad workers and coal miners are two other demographics that had similar labor upheavals in recent history.
Except I wouldn't say that. Plenty of things can require violence to solve. Marxism however requires violence against my neighbor just because he has work equipment to run his small business, which is "capital" and thus verboten. Come to think of it, since their kids moved out there is no way he and his wife needs 3 bedrooms, so we need to force them into more sustainable housing as well, through violence of course.
The interview was really bad but the mod reacting to criticism by deleting and locking posts and eventually locking the subreddit caused the community to lose trust in the ability of this person as a moderator.