EDIT: no, I don’t sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they’re losing an argument ;)

  • yukichigai@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Yes, let’s enter discussion with the literal Nazis so we can try to understand them. There might be nuance to their calls for mass genocide.

    Fuck off OP.

    • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      There is a block button. You don’t have to scream for daddy Admin every time someone says something stupid. I, for one, want to call them out, not keep everyone from my instance from interacting with them.

    • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      It’s funny how people always use play it like “oh, it’s just differing opinions” when what they’re actually defending is indefensible malarkey like nazis and tankies. They know if they made a meme saying we should “try to understand” nazis and tankies, they’d be downvoted to oblivion. And so they hide behind a shield of “differing opinions”.

      These cretins have a right to post nazi and tankie shit on their own instances – them’s the beauty of the fediverse. But I also have a right to not want hate speech, genocide denial, and Hitler/Stalin/Mao simps polluting my feed. It’s not mere “differing opinions” when one person’s opinion is “Holodomor didn’t happen, and if it did, the Ukrainians deserved it” or “Holocaust didn’t happen, and if it did, the Jews deserved it” or whatever apologia they wanna peddle.

      • ImmortanStalin@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Another horseshoe theory take… Last I checked the “tankies” saved everyone from the Nazis. Let’s equate genocidal/colonial violence to defend capital, with the efforts to establish socialism. LOL

      • yukichigai@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s funny how people always use play it like “oh, it’s just differing opinions” when what they’re actually defending is indefensible malarkey like nazis and tankies. They know if they made a meme saying we should “try to understand” nazis and tankies, they’d be downvoted to oblivion. And so they hide behind a shield of “differing opinions”.

        There’s an actual term for this: Motte and Bailey. One of many hallmarks of disingenuous shitbirds.

  • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Most defederation isn’t because people are disagreeing though. It’s because the people they’re defederating from are assholes.

    • ATQ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      OP is a three day old account. They know this, this meme is just them crying about it.

      • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Lol right? And if you even try to engage it’s constant sealioning, memeing, and dunking.

        • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Sealioning? No, you just won’t read my 10,000 word post that is copied from someone else’s pHD.

          Edit: No joke, after posting this I got this message from a Hexbear user:

          I’ve read all three volumes of [Das Kapital] around a month ago because I had an autistic urge to do it

          tell me with full seriousness that you’ve even glanced at it

          • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Have you even read Gramsci? You really can’t disagree with anything I say until you’ve read Gramsci. Sorry, I don’t make the rules!

            This is why my instance is defederated with them though. It’s just bad faith nonsense all the way down.

            • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              I mean, it’s not a huge problem to read Marx or Gramsci before arguing about Marx or Gramsci. You don’t have to read all they wrote, of course. To form an opinion on Gadamer I don’t have to read everything he wrote.

            • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              And you run a far-right uberconservatives instances so you have no room to talk on nonsense

          • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            It’s not even a good come back. It’s like saying that they’re right because they have the power of Shrek on their side

            • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              They are used to their echo chambers and high-fiving themselves. To be fair, I wouldn’t want to mess with them if Shrek was on their side.

      • acastcandream@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        To build on this point: I don’t get the whole “anti-echo chamber” thing and this demand we entertain said assholes. We select people to be friends we generally like and agree with. We often don’t associate with people we don’t like or disagree with. Why should our forums be some totally egalitarian social exposure? That’s literally never been the case ever. We read what we want to read. We talk to who we want to talk to. I’m not going to be guilted into listening to some jerk who thinks gay people shouldn’t marry and belong in hell. I don’t want to share a beer with them, I would never invite them to dinner in my home, so why should I have to deal with them living rent free in my mind because I saw some ignorant post of theirs and they called someone a slur? Hell, why should I be forced by some arbitrary, inconsistent moral code to deal with people who are simply disruptive/obnoxious?

        I have plenty of work colleagues and family I disagree with, I read sources I don’t always love. I get plenty of exposure to other ways of thinking and ideas, at least no less than anyone else does. Do I think people can go too far and literally only surround themselves with “yes men” socially? Sure. But come on. How many of us actually spend equal time with people we both agree and disagree ideologically with?

        The only people whining about defederating either don’t understand what it is or are butthurt because people are collectively showing them the door, and there is little they can do about it. 

        • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Yeah you’re right. It’s not a binary choice between echo chamber and non-echo chamber. It’s just an open community where trolling antisocial behaviour is discouraged. If admins of an instance are encouraging antisocial behaviour then the only solution is to defederate.

        • Erika2rsis@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          You might wish to be aware that your instance’s top-level domain was chosen because ML stands for “Marxism-Leninism”, and that the main admin of lemmy.ml has a photo of Mao as his profile banner. So you’re probably going to have a hard time convincing your instance’s admins to defederate from Hexbear and Lemmygrad, all things considered.

          Edit: While .ml is often used as a free TLD, lemmy.ml paid for that domain. Whether the use of the .ml TLD was then a deliberate reference to Dessalines’ outspoken political views is… evidently less certain than I thought. This was just a claim that I heard, it seemed right, I took it as fact, I repeated it here, I’m sorry. That was irresponsible.

  • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    lol its this shit every time libs see a legitimate left stance. im assuming you’ve seen the sh.itjust.works defed post. its like 5 super vocal users having a conniption fit that there are communists on the internet

  • Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    This post assumes that a meaningful amount of defed instances are caused by simple lack of agreement. Often, it’s an orthogonal matter - it boils down to instance A actually understanding something about the userbase of instance B and saying “I’m not dealing with this shit, it’ll make the instance worse for its own users”. For example: the typical user of B might be disingenuous, or preach immoral prescriptions, behave like a chimp, or be a bloody stupid piece of trash that should’ve stayed in Reddit to avoid smearing its stupidity everywhere here.

    Are instance admins too eager to pull the trigger for defed? Perhaps, in some cases; specially because it handles groups of users instead of individuals. But those cases are better addressed through actual examples, not through a meme talking on generic grounds.

  • MF_COOM [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    geordi-no defederate to maintain your very special echo chamber

    geordi-yes defederate to stop sh.tjust.works chuds from harassing your comrades in DMs with violent, transphobic and ableist attacks

  • 🐱TheCat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    ‘people posting stuff you consider harmful’ is not a simple, black and white issue. Anyone who pretends that allowing all opinions has no consequences is full of shit, anyone who claims that tightly policing opinions has no consequences is full of shit.

    Like almost everything in life, you will have to navigate a tenuous balance between these two things and you will never know if you got the balance right. You are just a sack of meat doomed to die.

      • 🐱TheCat@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        People were saying that about cryogenics.

        Humans have a vast body of knowledge about how things work. It’s a shame its dwarfed by the vast body of knowledge we are completely ignorant of.

        Much as scientists managed to be surprised that life had evolved to eat garbage in the pacific garbage patch, it seems some will manage to be surprised that when humans eliminate one source of mortality, another inevitably evolves to take advantage of the ever-growing supply of humans.

  • atrielienz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    No offense but this is kind of what happens in real life too. Nazi shows up to local bar. Barman or owner doesn’t throw them out. Eventually they invite their friends. It winds up being known a Nazi bar. People who don’t want to associate with Nazis no longer visit the bar. This is why intolerance of the intolerant is a thing.

  • Lizardking27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Lmao “try and understand them” fuck off, OP. You’re not fooling anyone. There’s no point trying to understand assholes.

  • FRAnkly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Nazi is a communist term for delegitimizing a legitimate sovereign nation. Cope with it. Churchill said so.

  • Mouette@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    If the ‘thing you dont agree’ with is hate speech or shit promotting violence for example that’s the only sane option you have lol

      • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Here’s a comment thread where a Hexbear user said “I hope to kill people like you” because I simply said I supported democratic socialism.

        Going on any Hexbear instance people froth over telling anyone right of Karl Marx to “get up against the wall”. You guys are, and will always be, a joke.

        • AlpineSteakHouse [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          You said you supported Social Democracy not Democratic Socialism. Dem Socs are well-meaning but idealistic, not optimistic but the political philosophy of idealism. Soc Dems are supporters of a kinder capitalism for the Imperial core but keeping the child slaves mining cobalt in the Congo.

          The fact that you think these are the same proves the original posters point that you should read theory. They were harsh but you were implying that keeping exploitation of the third world is preferable to socialism.

          Dude you still don’t stop worker exploitation, don’t solve the contradiction of working and capitalist classes, don’t end imperialism or colonialism (social democracy outsources exploitation to the third world)

          Ok let me know how your method works out

          • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            You said you supported Social Democracy not Democratic Socialism.

            What a terrible mistake to make! Perhaps you should have assumed it was the correct orientation of the two words that are spelled exactly the same.

            The fact that you think these are the same proves the original posters point that you should read theory.

            I have, but thanks for the suggestion.

            • CarbonScored [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              Assuming people are using words in the way they are widely and commonly accepted to mean (I mean, just look at Wikipedia for an easy starting point) is not a bad thing?

                • Alaskaball [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  I’m innudated with endless notifications from you dweebs, mistakes happen.

                  People keep telling me that I shit my pants based off the way I smell and the growing brown stain on my pants but they’re all tankies because they’re all wrong

            • AlpineSteakHouse [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              What a terrible mistake to make! Perhaps you should have assumed it was the correct orientation of the two words that are spelled exactly the same.

              Your beef is with the English Language not me. How is it my fault that you misidentified yourself? Funnily enough, you still don’t identify your actual political position. It’s clear that the only political position you’d take is what gives you an advantage in the argument. Fucking debatebros lol.

              I have, but thanks for the suggestion.

              Reading so much theory that you confuse two different political ideologies. Sometimes I read so much theory that that I claim to be a monarchist when I really mean to say I’m an anti-monarchist. Obviously the other person should have understood what I meant. Your literally on a communication medium that allows you to plan and edit your comments. You have no excuse for making this grade school mistake.

              • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                Debatebro? That’s what Hexbear does best.

                I would actually love to engage in good faith discussions, but Hexbear users only operate in bad faith, particularly by sealioning. Like clockwork, you don’t engage in ideas but rather give reading assignments.

                I’ve read Das Kapital and agree with virtually all the premises about how society is unfair to those who actually generate the surplus value and think that we need to fix a system that breaks cyclically, as Karl Marx correctly predicted in volume I. The only solutions I’ve seen presented are a total revolution a la 1917, which occured before globalization. Anything close to this in the current globalized world will kill at minimum hundreds of millions globally due to interdependence on products that Marx would consider “needs”, such as medications and medical equipment like dialysis machines.

                The difference between you and me is that I’d rather work to reestablish democracy away from capital interests. I don’t want a dictatorship, I want a functional democracy. Propaganda is often used to disillusion the working class from democracy, and if you don’t vote in elections then you are clearly part of the problem.

                Edit: Lmao. Citing"theory" gets crickets from the people who endlessly say “you just haven’t read theory”. It’s like they don’t know what to do with someone who reads to understand, rather than “reading” just to virtue signal.

            • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              two words that are spelled exactly the same

              Social and Socialism are not spelled the same, neither are Democracy and Democratic.

              • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                What incredible insight. The word ‘social’ is referring to ‘socialism’ and so is the relation between ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic’.

                It would take an idiot to mix these up, right?

                • AlpineSteakHouse [any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  The word ‘social’ is referring to ‘socialism’ and so is the relation between ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic’.

                  I guess social security = socialism security in your world? Social welfare programs are not socialism and if your political education included anything beyond Elizabeth Warren’s policy page you’d know that.

        • Mindfury [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          because I simply said I supported democratic socialism.

          so you promoted violence first?
          i’m failing to see your complaint here

        • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          I simply said I supported democratic socialism

          So you said that you support the regime of extreme global inequality against the third world in order to maintain treats in the first.

          • letsgocrazy@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            So socialism, if it has any degree of democracy to it, which is kind of essential to socialism, is evil in your eyes.

            What version of decision making is acceptable in socialism then?

            Just one party rule?

          • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            I support what are realistic policies actually will push the status quo in the direction you want.

            Larping on the internet waiting for a revolution to occur seems like a nice fantasy.

            • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              IDK what country you’re from, but in America at least, a democratic socialist has about as much likelihood of being elected to any given office as a communist does, so if you’re looking for “realistic” policies you should look elsewhere.

              • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                There are numerous democratic socialists who are in Congress, you just aren’t paying attention.

                Run for office. There have been many spoilers from genuine grassroots campaigns. Don’t want to do either? Keep coping and seething online.

                • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  Who are you talking about? AOC? If your definition of a democratic socialist is a left-leaning Democrat then it is thoroughly incompatible with mine, because I would require at a minimum that anybody classified as any kind of “socialist” be staunchly opposed to Capital.

                • TankieTanuki [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. Entryism always ends up changing the entrant instead of the system. We are revolutionary socialists.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yes. Tolerance should not extend to intolerance, and intolerance should never be a thing we tolerate.

      • letsgocrazy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        If it were that simple, then it would be fine.

        But the point is, people just start to label anything that whiffs of a different opinion as “intolerance”.