You opened up with some unnecessary pro-Biden stances to attempt to make him seem better, no?

So, I went back and re read your initial message carefully. I actually pretty much agree with it -- the Hillary Clintons and Nancy Pelosis of the world have been attacking leftists, blocking forward progress, and then blaming the voters when they lose elections because they are more or less even with Reagan politically. There's nothing really to vote for there, and not voting for open fascism when the alternative is screwing you left and right isn't really all that appealing.

The reason I responded the way I did is that Biden actually isn't at all the same as them. If you look factually at what he's done, he's a huge departure from the norm for corporate Democrats. You can believe that or not (or, you can say that abetting a genocide in Gaza makes it hard to like anything he might have done domestically -- and pretty understandable, I think, if you say that.)

But I don't get how citing facts of what's he done is "unnecessary" or "attempting" to make him seem better. I didn't like Biden initially, just because he's a rich white guy who's worked in Washington all his life. I didn't expect real good things out of him. Then he started doing all this good stuff, and I started liking him. Surely that's an allowed way to go about things? Responding to the reality of what someone's doing as a reason to like or dislike them?

the purpose is to silence dissent

This is a framing that usually comes out of conservatives. I am not silencing your dissent. I am disagreeing with you.

I won't tell you what to do, but I would politely ask that if you want me to take you seriously, stop saying that I am "silencing dissent" or "punching left" or whatever, just because I am holding a different opinion than you, and explaining why I hold it. Those are very different things. I'm allowed to hold a different viewpoint, and it's weird to me that you are so vigorous about the idea that it's violent or inappropriate for me to do so.