Due to a (now former) admin of the instance anarchist.nexus calling for a member of our team, as well as anyone else they call a zionist, to be murdered, the instance has been defederated.
We’re currently discussing how we will proceed with this situation and whether it will affect lemmy.dbzer0.com, which is mostly run by the same admin team, notably excluding the person who used to be on the anarchist.nexus admin team.
We will share further updates once we have them.
Update 2026-04-22 23:25 UTC: anarchist.nexus federation has been reactivated.
We are still discussing this matter, but there is currently no point in keeping anarchist.nexus defederated while lemmy.dbzer0.com is federated.
From what I saw, the ‘call to murder’ was someone having kill all zionists in their username, and that only makes sense as a real call to violence if we’re supposed to take everyone’s username seriously and literally. That would be a very weird world to be in, as then we’d have to accept that we’re reading posts written by Star Trek characters come to life, inanimate objects, and various bodily fluids. Without evidence of something worth taking more seriously, at best this looks like the admin team doing something silly, and obviously certain groups of Lemmy users will interpret it less charitably and as the LW admin team being pro-genocide. Neither is a good look.
My handle is serious. Deadly serious.
Same dude.
I’m sure you’ll have someone to satisfy your request someday.
Hello 😏
I mean, isn’t that what conservatives always do? Every horrible remark they make can always be taken back as “just a joke”. It’s like floating a weather balloon to gauge public reaction.
Surprise surprise Lemmy isn’t entirely different from Reddit in that:
For the record, I am not for calling anyone’s death as that’s not my thing, but have some consistency hypocrites. Smh.
The site structure can only do so much when what you hate is certain users. The idea of lemmy is that other instances can be free from the unjust actions of users on one instance such as this one-- which is a success.
deleted by creator
I don’t agree. I don’t think people should have usernames of the form “kill all [certain type of people]”.
If someone condemns Israel’s actions against Palestinians then okay. But I don’t think it’s right to call for the deaths of people you disagree with. Even the worst criminals should arguably not be killed with the death penalty, but instead imprisoned for life.
During an active military conflict, killing isn’t applying the death penalty just for disagreeing with someone, it’s typically the only remotely viable way to stop them committing whatever act they’re in the middle of. When that act is genocide, killing them is almost universally the only moral action as anything else, even if it still stopped them, would take longer and in doing so let more genocide happen.
If they’ve been stopped by other means, e.g. economic sanctions make genocide too expensive to continue, then many genocidal acts carry the death penalty under international law. That’s ethically dubious, but it’s far from the biggest problem with anti-genocide law given that it’s blatently not actually preventing genocide. If the username were just apply international law to zionists, then it’d still be promoting killing people.
It’s also misleading to reduce zionists to certain type of people, as it conjoures up ideas based on inherent identity that are obviously bad to persecute before more directly comparable types of people like murder enthusiasts actively committing murders and refusing to stop despite pressure to. No reasonable person would say armed police were unjustified in shooting someone who was stabbing someone else after they’d been already told to drop their weapon. Not all zionists are actively killing people, but they are all calling for it to be allowed to continue, otherwise they inherently wouldn’t be zionists.
Surely it isn’t necessarily true that every single zionist supports bombing Gaza. “Zionist” apparently means:
Surely some people within that definition support the existence of Palestine alongside Israel, and they oppose any harm done to Palestinian civilians. For example there is an Israeli charity, B’Tselem, which apparently supports Palestinian rights, although I don’t know much about them.
Supporting the state of Israel, at a time when it is actively committing a genocide, is supporting the genocide. Genocide should be a red line that forces people to stop supporting its perpetrators, and anyone who doesn’t withdraw support once a genocide starts must be, on some level, okay with it.
Existing within a state doesn’t automatically imply support for it. Most people have at least something they want their state to stop doing, and that can and does include existing. It’s hard to say that a charity issuing statements that Israel is an “apartheid regime”, “no longer a democracy” and “committing genocide” supports the state of Israel.
There are also plenty of people who, if asked, would say they support the state of Israel, but wouldn’t support genocide, and not see that as contradictory because they’re under the impression that Israel isn’t committing a genocide. What they’re supporting isn’t the state of Israel, it’s a hypothetical alternative state of Israel that doesn’t exist. If (pretending for a moment that the USS Enterprise wasn’t decommissioned in 2017 and was currently in the Strait of Hormuz) someone who mistakenly believed the United Federation of Planets was real expressed support after hearing in the news that the USS Enterprise had fired on other ships, it’d be most reasonable to just ignore them rather than assuming their opinion of their imaginary state was relevant to what their opinion of the real United States would be.
There are probably people who support the existence of Israel without supporting what Bibi and his government have done. Opposition politicians in Israel, for example.
Surely in any country there will be people (such as opposition politicians and activists) who oppose the current government’s actions, without wanting the state itself to be dissolved. Even in very authoritarian countries like North Korea there might be such people, although of course they would have to keep their views private, due to near-certain persecution otherwise.
a lot of lemmings like to dog whistle by saying they would not shed a tear if all zionists or anyone not protesting against them were killed
because they are cowards
I think speech on the issue of killing zionists is more serious than Star Trek and cum farts, because there’s a war actively going on. And killing Zionist civilians during a war is starting to sound pretty war-crimey. We should only be killing Zionist soldiers.
If someone, in the course of WWII, said “kill all Nazis”, would you feel the same?
Keeping in mind Nazism, like Zionism, is a political identity one chooses…
And they are closely related ideologies, targeting their opposition and critics
I don’t mind either statement on it’s own. But it does become problematic once people go around baselessly accusing others of being Nazis/Zionists, which is something that is rampant on lemmy, especially dbzer0 and its offshoots.
Schindler, the list guy, was a Nazi. And he saved a thousand Jewish people from the Nazis. I don’t think Schindler ought have been killed. Plus there’s Operation Paperclip. They recruited Nazi scientists to work at NASA and help get a man on the moon. I’m not educated enough to understand the full ramifications of Paperclip, but it seems like a decent idea.
But all of that is kinda besides the point, because Netanyahu has a very different propaganda strategy to Hitler. A more sophisticated one. Netanyahu wants there to be extremists who would see him dead. He funded Hamas during the last Gazan election, because of their violent rhetoric. There is serious evidence that he and the government knew about October 7 and deliberately allowed it to happen by suspending the border patrols during the crucial hours. He’s got a plan.
Israel thrives on the violent rhetoric of its opponents, because they want to call us terrorists. That is why we must conduct ourselves with the appropriate restraint to beat these allegations. Luminous’ rhetoric sounds terrorist-y. They’re advocating for the killing of civilians. That’s terrorism. We need to be better than that, or we can’t win the propaganda war and gather allies.
I mean this pretty much avoids the question by invoking the idea that because there was some Nazis you approve of, something something… I fail to see the relevance. It sure sounds like apologetics.
You then proceed to moralize about the efficacy of the critique the stament is making, but you didn’t actually address the question.
Your argument is basically “Don’t be critical of Zionists or Israelis, because that plays into their five d chess”.
Now, put yourself in the position of the period immediately before WWII, and in your response, replace the word Israel with the word Nazi Germany.
Would you still agree with your statement? Are you comfortable with history remembering you did these kinds of apologetics on behalf of the worst criminals, the most abhorrent people of the time?
Okay, I’ll switch to talking about the big man himself.
It is a wonderful thing that Hitler killed himself. It was a PR blessing for the allies, because it prevented him from becoming a martyr. If Hitler had not killed himself, I do not think he should have been given the death penalty. I am against killing Hitler unless he was an active combatant. I think Hitler should have been given life in prison, because I am against the death penalty in all circumstances. And it would have made him a martyr.
Likewise, Netanyahu should not be killed. He should be given a fair trial, which I believe should reach a verdict of life in prison. I don’t want Netanyahu martyred, I don’t want to spend tons of money on his death row, I just want to put him in a room where he can’t hurt anyone until he dies of old age.
I’m not a Nazi apologist I just think hitler shouldn’t have been killed.
Actually insane.
If you can’t help but see a consistent position against the death penalty as “Nazi apologia”, that’s your problem.
The Nazis got some of their best inspiration from America’s treatment of black people. I don’t exactly think America is a shining beacon of responsibility, especially in the 1940s. I don’t think America should have a death penalty, because I don’t trust the American government to wield that power responsibly. If political enemies like Hitler can be executed, then political enemies like Edward Snowden are at risk too.
As an anarchist, I want to limit the power of the state because I don’t trust anyone with that much power. And I especially don’t trust the likes of Harry Truman and Richard Nixon.
You can’t be an anarchist and love facism this much. Its simply impossible.
On this point and this point alone I reply: No. Do not let the enemy define the terms of the battle. In the US, the Democrats need to not placate the fascists. Again, I am solely discussing the words I quoted, not the larger topic of zionists or the lemmy thing.
… I’m pretty sure both Democrats and Republicans are fascists. The Democrats want to exploit and enslave weaker nations for the benefit of the “lower” class and the Republicans want the spoils of war to go to the middle class. Both funnel resources to the upper class, so in that regard they aren’t different.
I don’t really have an opinion about this one way or the other, but it’s two sides of the same coin. Despite their different rhetoric, they are ultimately one and the same. I’ve just accepted the fact that I am probably fascist. Honesty is necessary for change.
No. Very much no.
But first of all, where you are right is that the oligarchs are the true root of the problem in the US; or at least, the worst problem we have. And they do corrupt the entire system, yes.
However, the bits I’ve quoted above are very much not the case. I won’t do it here, but I have many many times pulled up voting records for what each side has actually voted for.
I can’t say there’s not times when they coordinate to make something almost pass, but I definitely can say that there are very VERY clear differences.
For one recent example close to my home here in Virginia: republicans have abused gerrymandering far longer and far worse than Democrats. Dems have tried to pass legislation to stop it. Btu recently states like Texas gerrymandered in an attempt to help Republicans gain more seats.
So in reply, Virginia did the same. MUH BOTH SIDES!!! But… one critical difference. In Virginia, we VOTED. And it nearly failed. So even when the Dems are fighting back in an attempt to force Republicans to eventually support an end to gerrymandering by gerrymandering themselves, they still put it up to a vote.
The two parties are not the same.
Alas, the Dems are, as a whole, pretty centre-right, but the Republicans are extreme right fascists.
So if you’re any sort of progressive, people like AOC and Bernie are rare lights in a very very dark place. But while there are shadows in the Democrat party, the Republicans are down the street, around the corner, at the back of a very very deep cave.
All that said, think what you wish to think. But really, they are not the same. But we do have very very very deep problems that do affect both parties. Just not equally.
I’m against the death penalty and I’m against targeting civilians during a war. Those aren’t the enemy’s terms of battle, those are My beliefs and values.
You’re replying out of the scope of my quote and reply. Which is your right, but means I have no further reply at this time.
I love it when you fascist lovers out yourself like this.
Ikr? Just for starters, using Operation Paperclip as an example of something good and positive to back up your point, when supposedly your reasoning for defederation is based on the concept of the Nazi bar? That is some seriously wild pro-fash hypocrisy.
If someone said “Murder all Martians. Rimu is a martian.” and then we spend hours debating whether it’s ok to kill martians or not then that would be a waste of time. Because I am not a martian. Obviously there are situations where murdering Martians can be justified - the problem is someone calling for me to be killed based on made-up bullshit. Let’s talk about that.
Oof, this is the part that keeps coming back to haunt every instance across the Threadiverse. The question they raised is: why defederate hexbear.net and Lemmygrad.ml while giving a free pass to lemmy.ml?
There are reasons, though nuance and subtlety seem mostly absent from that YPTB post. When I was growing up, I was taught that my rights ended where someone else’s began, i.e. I can do anything I please, but so too can everyone else. Thus e.g. AN can do whatever it wants, yet as a result if other instances choose to defederate from it as a result, then that is their choice. Why one instance should be free to call for murder while another instance should NOT be free to block that kind of talk looks to me to be pure incel behavior: “my idea of a ‘compromise’ is when the other side does as I say”. aka trolling, or leftist MAGA.
The Threadiverse continues to fracture along the lines of “free speech” instances, which constantly call for the rights of other instances to be curtailed, and instances that enjoy moderating only themselves internally, for the sake of their users happiness since some of us actually are not terminally online and always, Always, ALWAYS looking for a fight.
I think your point about a war going on is spot on, but backwards.
While the project of zionism is engaged in genocide, kill all zionists is pretty clearly a call for resisting and punishing genocide.
Just as during a deeply homophobic regime, be gay do crime is clearly understood as a call to resist our illegitimate system.