Ban is definitely over the top.

Sometimes less is more with respect to rhetoric (not saying there aren't situations were you have to be clear and uncompromising in your statements).

Another rule is that all contents have to follow German, Austrian and Switzerland's laws. Under German law the comment that got deleted is incitement of people and therefore it was right to delete it.

Saying "nazi lives don't matter" isn't even "dehumanizing".

Dehumanization is Trump calling immigrants rapists and criminals, and associating them with insects, rodents, and pests.

Dehumanization is banning every government department from acknowledging the existence of women, LGBTQ+, minorities, etc, and ordering them to erase any mention of their history.

You guys always stop halfway through Poppers writings of the Paradox.

"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument. They may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."

Popper never argued to strip people of the right to free speech. Even immoral free speech. He makes the line very clear: when people begin using fists and pistols. That is, tolerate up to the point of physical violence.

I don't think the paradox of tolerance works here. Popper argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. It doesn't say kill them, it says don't tolerate them. Meaning exclude these topics from public discourse or make basic right non-negotiable and unalterable. One of these basic rights being the right to life. Ironically, by calling into question such a basic right, you are actually the intolerant one Popper means.

Of course, this only applies as long as we are still in a tolerant society. A better argument at the moment especially in the US would be the right to resist.

Agreed. You do have to shut down nazis/tankies etc. Zero tolerance policy even.

I am just saying look at it from the mods point of view, they do have to act upon their "no dehumanization" rule or they risk that rule not having any meaning.

Consider a situation where some tankie is ranting about how Trump supporters are capitalist roachs and lack humanity. You don't want that shit in any community.

Yes, you shut them down. That doesn't require you to dehumanize them. Someone inciting violence against a minority group for example would also be banned I'm sure. The paradox of tolerance is simply solved by limiting the freedom of the intolerant. There are plenty of ways to do that without pretending the offender isn't human. Honestly, resorting to that line of thinking is very much what Nazis do.