"...physiological manipulation using shame, guilt, minimization, name calling, dehumanization, bullying, flagging and a whole range of other manipulators, the violence must be confronted and addressed."

None of those harms are physiological. They are psychological. This therefore excludes violence, which requires physical contact.

"Everyone has the right to be treated with respect.
Everyone has the right to express their feelings and opinions.
Everyone has the right to set boundaries and choose who they will interact with.
Everyone has the right to say NO!
Everyone has the right to disagree or have differing opinions.
Everyone has the right to self care and protect oneself from being threatened, intimidated or attacked.
Everyone has the right to peace; physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually
Everyone has the right to be free of violence, coercion, manipulation or intimidation of any kind.
Everyone has the right to a livelihood"

Several of these claims are false. No one has a right to peace. Life itself is an act of war. Every breath you take kills some life forms. Every step you take violently crushes something to death. As a result, we necessarily have, as you state, a right to defend ourselves - because existential threat is intrinsic to living, and all living things demonstrably must defend themselves from harm to live. Both claims cannot be true, as if we actually had a right to peace, we would have no need to defend ourselves.

Please stop trivializing actual physical violence by claiming psychological insult is equivalent.

Further, you confuse two separate issues when you claim we have a right to set boundaries, which we do, and also have a right to choose who we interact with, which is impossible and absurd. We do not have any ability to censor existence, even theoretically, and determine how our environment - which includes other people - acts on us. We do have the right to act as we choose in response to environmental circumstances over which we have no control, and, for example, can mute other social media accounts so that we might pretend they don't exist. They do exist, and still impact our accounts, but by muting them we become unaware of that affect, except when revealed by others.

We cannot have a right to 'a livelihood'. You have a right to seek to live, and that means you have a right to seek a livelihood, but it is your responsibility to actually provide that livelihood, and thus it is not your right to have one, but your responsibility to make one.

These facts do not invalidate your dissatisfaction with the collusion and censorship on Steem. However, being unreasonable and making false statements makes even true statements you make necessarily suspect, and trivial to discard. Since we agree on the harm that censorship does, I seek to encourage you to restrict your statements to those that are demonstrably factually correct, so that your false statements do not prevent others that might lend their strength to the fight against censorship from dismissing that struggle as unreasonable.