Probably the easiest boycott you could do, let's do it Lemmy!
Probably the easiest boycott you could do, let's do it Lemmy!
I for one have stopped posting any content to lemmy.ml communities.
You're viewing a single thread.
"We should defederate from everything which does not agree with my .world view and create a giant centralized echo chamber"!
Why the fuck does every .world user suddenly want Lemmy to be Reddit?
Personally I would like to be able to talk to people with different views, in a civil manner. But Lemmy.ml doesn't seem to want that. If you post something that they don't like (even if it's a very moderate view and is expressed in a completely civil way) then they ban you. They seem to really hate moderate people.
Most of the users saying this went around screaming the word Tankie all over the place on .ml.
I got instance banned for saying federal democratic republics are a form of democracy.
Edit: I also don't care. I never expected M-Ls to do anything besides M-L things and they don't owe me anything.
Modlogs are public, everyone can see why you were banned.
Also no ml would disagree with that, here's Lenin explaining the difference between a capitalist democracy and a workers democracy.
Everyone can see why the mod said they were banned. If you believe the mod logs, I was banned from 196 for "supporting genocide"
If you believe in modlogs, then drag was banned from [email protected] for "trolling", which is what a trans person explaining their pronouns is.
To be fair, to me (a 30-something gay dude from EU) what you posted here in the screenshot looks like taking a piss and trolling.
Trolls who pretend to be trans are only threatening if you feel threatened by trans people. When you react with hostility, you feed and empower them. When you restrict the rights of trans people under the suspicion a troll might use those rights, the trolls win.
If you practice radical acceptance and only draw the line at causing harm to other people, then trolls can't do anything bad to you.
Drag isn't a troll, but drag is bewildered at the logic that we should stop trolls by doing exactly what they want. That's never going to work. You're just gonna end up hurting real trans people like drag. And you're gonna send a message to other queer people that if they step one inch out of line, you'll be ready to call them a troll too. Who on earth does that actually help?
Wait, you're DroneRights?
No, drag's name is Dragon Rider.
Probably shouldn't support genocide then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I would love for you to find the comment where I did that
Which is why you can see them do it exactly as stated. "American propaganda" lol.
Have fun hanging around people who ban people for disagreeing with the party line of a dead ideology that had its corpse cannibalized by fascists. That will surely lead to the second revolution.
Can you point at me where it says you were banned for "American propaganda"? I tried ctrl+f "propaganda" to see what you were saying that got you banned and nothing came up.
Nobody is going to disagree that a bourgeois democracy is a democracy, only that bourgeois democracies represent the people instead of bourgeoisie.
That'd be the part where they hid the actual comments and mod responses on all the .ml communities. Interesting that it rewrites the history when they decide to undo it, I hadn't actually noticed it expired.
So weird and uncharacteristic of M-Ls to do something shitty and then delete the records and then lie about the cause because it makes them look bad...
.world communities do the same thing, just banning someone for "misinformation" looks much less suspicious than showing posts of me linking people the Wikipedia article on Tienanmen Square and describing what the article said and surrounding context instead of joining the china-bad circle-jerk.
There's a pretty big difference between arguing the details of something as controversial as Tianamen and instance banning anyone that doesn't use the Party-approved definition of democracy even though they clearly referred to a specific form of it.
Moderate in what context? Moderate about Jews in 1938 Germany? Jews at some point in time before that? Black people in 1800s Amerikkka. Black people in today's amerikkka?
Being banned means less of a problem for you - got a reason to ignore them and let them echo chamber however they want.
every accusation is a confession.
I've never banned anybody for saying their view, and I don't think I'd support someone being banned for saying their view, as long as they're being respectful, and as long as they're not advocating anything criminal.
We should defederate from everything which does not agree with my .world view
I will try to formulate this as well as I can:
"One should not give a platform to instances which don't give a platform to others."
Examples (based on hexbear):
-
in some communities you get banned for voting the wrong way --> other instances don't practise banning for votes
-
in some communities you get banned for being "reactionary" (that is, factual - Wikipedia would get banned just as quick) --> other instances only ban bigots, not people who politely disagree with locals
-
in some communities, there is no obvious recourse to get a ban reviewed and reversed --> on other instances, there is a metacommunity about management or instructions about how to challenge a ban
The result: certain instances are granted a platform by others, but aren't granting a platform to "foreigners" in return. And management habits in some places are straight from North Korea.
Defederating from an echo chamber doesn't make your instance an echo chamber, unless you follow up by adopting the policies of the echo chamber you defederated from.
-
"Different world views" isn't a problem, the problem is users espousing repugnent "world views" and being assholes.
Pretending like we have to put up with other users' repulsive, insane "ideas" and bullying behavior in our spaces is laughable. Bigots, fascists, and actual tankies can fuck off.
You probably have some views that are repugnent to me, and vice versa. That's freedom of speech and political pluralism.
being assholes.
This though, I agree just ban that user.
One of the instances believes Hamas are freedom fighters and the state of Israel has no right to exist.
The other believes the inverse.
Who is the fascist with repugnant world views?
Hamas and the Netanyahu regime are bloodthirsty authoritarian regimes who both qualify as terrorists, given their recent exploits.
Dodged the question about Israels right to exist. Supports the Fascist state and condemned the freedom fighter.
There is your answer folks.
Isreal does not have a right to exist, Israelis do, but Isreal doesn't. It only exists because the land it was on was forcibly taken from Palestinians. Edit: spelling
But Palestinians do not have the right to fight back against their occupiers, They should die quietly while everyone with the moral high-ground says what Israel doing is bad and proceeds to do nothing about it.
Israel as a haven for European Jewry after the 2nd world war is dumb idea to begin with for a plethora of reasons at the time. That said there're plenty of states through history that begin under dubious pretenses. Their citizenry doesn't deserve wanton violence nor do they necessarily deserve wholesale dissolution.
Israel does have a right to exist. The Israelis don't have a right to take land forcibly from people and murder women and children.
I agree no state has a right to exist
honestly y'all should go ahead and block every instance; we'd all be better off without you fascist bootlicking .world users
in what universe is a settler state that's been brutalizing and ethnic cleansing the people from whom they stole their land the "freedom fighter"
Israel as a haven for European Jewry after the 2nd world war is dumb idea to begin with for a plethora of reasons at the time. That said there're plenty of states through history that begin under dubious pretenses. Their citizenry doesn't deserve wanton violence nor do they necessarily deserve wholesale dissolution.
Israel does have a right to exist. The Israelis don't have a right to take land forcibly from people and murder women and children.
Israel does have a right to exist. The Israelis don’t have a right to take land forcibly from people and murder women and children.
But that is how Israel exists. How can it not have the right to do that and then have the right exist simultaneously?
How can it not have the right to do that
Forcibly take land and murder civilians?
and then have the right exist simultaneously?
One can have a country and be fair and magnanimous with the people who were on the land before.
The country is the apartheid system. It is the problem.
I agree. One of many problems.
If calling Israel a terror state means supporting it, then you tankies must be the DNC!
I love it when obvious trolls are obvious, Once I've blocked enough of them whomever is left are people I can actually have a conversation with.
Do not answer the difficult question lest the mask starts slipping.
the latter. go back to Reddit lmao
States don't have rights, humans have rights, and the existence of Israel as an apartheid settler colonial project is incompatible with the human rights of the groups they are oppressing.
That's true for essentially every state to some degree or another
Eh..... Lemmy is already a lot like reddit in the very beginning, just more extreme.
I think a big problem with Lemmy is that even the large instances only have a few terminally online posters, so a lot of the communities get warped by those posters biases.
Right now Hexbear is having a little internal conflict between the mods and some posters over the harassment of lgbtq and POC. The mods started out handing out temporary bans to offenders and then people started freaking out because no one was posting shit.
Because Lemmy is fucking communist.
Please go back to reddit.
But they're not wrong
You go back to lemmy. Oh wait