Users need an option to block instances

Even though I don't particularly like or agree with the attitude or points of lemmygrad users, I still think there should be no blocking/defederation on instance level.

IMHO it's a fundamental design flaw of lemmy, that the instance administrators have the ability to prevent their users from accessing content from certain other instances just because of their different (political/ideological) orientation. Being exposed to other opinions, even though you don't like or agree with them, is very important. Yet this seems to become an increasingly rare phenomenon. Even if an instance doesn't want to promote the posts of another, the users should still be able to decide on their own, which community to subscribe or block. I'd love to see more features for that.

From reading the comments in this or other threads, I can see that it wont take long until lemmy will go the same echo chambered and biased way reddit went and ultimately this will be its demise. Alienating everyone who questions the current development with "Just go somewhere else" or "Get lost and host your own instance" is certainly the best way to go for ensuring only the right people stay for the infinite circle jerk...

The easiest solution for now is to join us at beehaw.org or our friends at sopuli.xyz. We block lemmygrad and put much care in moderation

This comment section makes my phone lag lol

(before the Tankies start posting about how they aren’t pro-fascism “Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy” which all describe the Z movement in Russia they gleefully support in multiple posts)

This would also describe America.

So unless you want to ban all liberals and supporters of America (which would mean you) you need to tighten your funtionally useless definition of fascism. You should start by reading an actual book and learning the history of fascism.

When you misuse the word fascism to describe things that are not fascism you mis-educate huge wide swathes of people on what fascism actually is. In doing so you HELP actual fascists rehabilitate their ideology. You are helping fascists by calling something that is not fascism, fascism.

You are an even worse one than the others...

where did you come from?

Yes please! I have nothing against Lemmygrad, but I also don't want them to overwhelm everything else from my All feed. Please let us block entire instances, not just communities.

Tbh this is basically my problem, too much political content, I've blocked all the sublemmies I can but seeing that the default user experience isn't this streamlined is a big problem I have for not recommending Lemmy to anyone.

I see it as a divide between people who want to enjoy tech/privacy version of Reddit, and people who want it to be Twitter but their own tribe, this goes for Wolfballs, and Lemmygrad.

147 (now 148) comments on this crap. Why is it we can't seem to get a liveley discussion like this but on a topic that isn't some crybaby infighting?

Really feels like some reactionary bait that lemmygrad users are swallowing whole.

Oh, you little fed. You have to be a fed. No one is this intentionally ignorant

I support this feature. But Wikipedia is not an authority on what fascism is. The dictionary attempts to describe the usage of a word in this case as it relates to an objective phenomenon. Before we can attempt this description, an understanding of the objective phenomenon must be had. We can rely on definitions for understood phenomena like water, jogging, or birds. But what exactly fascism is is a hotly debated topic, not a well understood phenomenon that we hold absolute knowledge and certainty of. Even your dictionary source admits it is a characterization of fascism, not exactly a definition.

A conservative will reason discursively that Hitler was a leftist, because the Left can be defined as more government, so Fascism is far left. In the same way, that buzzfeed employee could argue their own view of what misogyny is. To them, when a man spreads their legs in public, this is the sexist act of manspreading.

What these people (and you) are doing is taking a word that has a strongly negative connotation, arguing for an expanded categorization of this word in an attempt to rub off that connotation on something else. But all this succeeds in doing is devaluing said word.

Fascism has a negative connotation because its consequence was the death of 60-100 million people. That has nothing to do with Bernie supporters wanting to give people free healthcare. The "more government" connection (what even does 'more government' mean?) has to be proven more than circumstantial. Likewise, sexism has a negative connotation because of rape, women in the past not having basic rights like the right to vote, etc. But a man letting his balls get some air has nothing to do with that, even if people find it a little rude.

They have algebraically replaced a world phenomenon with a term, much like a mathematician replaces a quantity with the letter 'X' on paper. Then they have discursively reasoned using the term, not the phenomenon. You can find the length of a square's side from the root of the area. We have a square that is 4 cm². So what is √4? Math tells us that it is ±2. So a square in real life can have a negative length? This is the lunacy that you will accept with analytical reasoning if you do not understand its premises.

So instead of lazily giving us a definition full of nebulous terms, why not prove to me that any similarities between modern Russia and the Fascist countries are more than circumstantial? What is the unity behind these particular examples? All states are militaristic. All states suppress real opposition. Authoritarianism is no realer than the boogeyman. Russia does not have a "strong regimentation of society" so you're just flat out wrong there.