The counterargument is that loopholes in the mechanics allowed the community in question to artificially limit the impact of everyone else's favorite platform of free expression. The charitable view is to call what's being done a bandaid to fix a broken mechanic.

It's also not an understatement to say that the level of rule-breaking (doxxing, vote brigading, abuse, etc) from the community, sanctioned (or at least not nearly adequately curtailed) by its moderators, is probably justifiably grounds for banning the whole community (since it's failing to self-moderate) but that can't really happen because it would cause a much larger and more problematic fallout.

The last sentence of your comment is ignorant and needlessly incendiary. I'm sure you'll find that the people you're talking about probably do know what it means. You can disagree with "people who identify as liberals but argue for different actions based on their best judgment than you do" (and there's plenty of fruitful discussions and arguments to be had around those judgments), without snidely saying that they're ignorant schmucks who've lost track of their purpose.