Hemming and hawing over genocide is disgusting.

Saying Hamas is antisemitic is sure fire sign of being a Zionist.

Palestinians are a semitic people.

If you want to saw that Hamas hates Jews, well, when your entire life has been being bombed by planes with stars of David on them, while jackbooted thugs with stars of David on their shoulder kick in your door to kidnap your family members in the night, and settlers with star of David necklaces show up and claim your home and land by divine right, I can start to see where you develop feelings toward the people who carry the same sign.

Maybe, just maybe, if Israel wanted the world to be a safer place for Jews they would stop associating a genocide with Judaisim as they are so fucking desperate to do.

Spoken like someone that condemned the ANC as terrorists in the 80's.

"Sure, apartheid is wrong, but the people suffering it and fighting it are the worst" <--- you.

It does not make you a Zionist on Lemmy. You are a Zionist in real life.

The German left, at least the loud one, is public ally dividing between this topic. On demonstration you see a lot of people openly supporting Hamas, wearing the red triangle etc. For me it is only natural to fight this form of anti semitism. That makes you a “Zionist” on Lemmy, as there is often only “anti genocide and pro genocide” in online discussions. But the world is very complex and there is a large continuum between Islamic and Jewish ethno state philosophy.

This is all nonsense and you are indeed a zionist. Thank you for making it clear to everyone.

That makes you a “Zionist” on Lemmy, as there is often only “anti genocide and pro genocide” in online discussions.

Thank you again for clarifying which side you are on.

ask an anti german what they think of muslims in the middle east :) it'll be the most misanthropic thing you heard all day. anti germans are disgusting zionists and need to be shunned from leftist places. they are pro-genocide and there is no nuance to it. they are not part of the left, just delusional cosplayers

What's wrong with the term "leftist organization?" Educate, agitate, organize is the common saying, organizing is the fundamental task of leftists.

"Is genocide bad? Who can say, it's just so complex!"

Don't be discouraged. Personally I don't have the energy any more to endure the abuse of the mob (these "leftist" ignoramuses whose obsession with "Zionism" leads them to support literal fascism) but it's important that somebody makes the points you're making.

You should have been bullied more in school.

My favorite part is pointing out that most israelis are not white westerners, but from other middle eastern countries who were fleeing persecution in those countries and are more arab than western in terms of ethnicity and history.

But that doesn't fit the nice narrative that all Israelis are white colonlizer/invaders from europe or something. Literally never had it acknowledged once, just denied and told that it is zionist propaganda.

Sometimes the further left extremes I've heard hear are indistinguishable from conservative Q-Anon. I legitimately need to check users post histories to understand which extreme they are on

Liberalism was the original leftism: see the French revolutionary National Assembly. It doesn't intrinsically have anything to do with capitalism. In general, liberalism is neither left nor right. It promotes individualism. Historically, it progressed from humanism.

leftism begins at anti-capitalism

Not the political science definition.

General definitions & the historical development of liberalism are academic.

liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.

Some of the earliest liberal practices are found in the US Declaration of Independence, which predates the French revolution spreading the practice of liberal ideals throughout Europe. The US declaration pretty much rehashes core tenets of liberal philosophy

• inherent equality of individuals
• universal individual rights & liberties
• consent of the governed (governments exist for the people who have a right to change & replace them, & authority is legitimate only when it protects those liberties).

Note how capitalism isn't mentioned anywhere: it's nonessential. Capitalism predates & isn't liberalism. Liberalism is moral & political philosophy, not an economic one.

The philosophy is a natural progression of humanist philosophies from the Renaissance through the Protestant Reformation & the Enlightenment that stress the importance of individuality, secular reasoning, & tolerance over dogma & subservience to unaccountable authority. To address unaccountable authority based on dogma & traditions, English & French philosophers defined legitimate authority based on humanist morality pretty much as expressed in the US declaration. They argued that political systems thrive better with limits & duties on authority & an adversarial system of institutional competition whether in separation of powers, adversarial law system with habeas corpus & right to jury trial, competitive elections, dialogue, or economic competition.

Nope.

"I got kicked out of several places by people accusing me of being a bigot" is an incredible comment to make, lmao.

They are implying that ml instances are no less egregious about the types of bad content they allow, even if the content itself is different

They are wrong.

"B-b-but my side virtuous (in all ways, and can do no wrong), while their side ignoramus (everything they do is because they are poopy-heads)!"

I wish I could add /s here but a good half the population on earth seems to hold to this as an invariant position, solidarity in the face of all obstacles, i.e. the Nazi bar effect.

Case in point: who doesn't love it when a religious institution offers food and shelter and medical care to the needy, or counsels people to forgive, laying down their burdens and seek therapy to thereby travel lighter through the world? It is the diddling kids part that for some strange reason (/s on this one) people tend to get upset?

Since we were talking about Zionism here, I will mention that Deuteronomy 13:5 (in the Torah, part of the Old Testament for Christian and Muslim and offshoot religious branches such as Mormonism) provides an EXTREMELY stern warning about those who would misuse their authority to lead people astray.

TLDR: intolerance paradox - if you tolerate the intolerant, it corrupts the entire system, giving it a bad reputation when people see the worst excesses and extrapolate that to infer the properties of the whole. e.g. Reddit is fascist, hence we did not stay and put up with it but rather moved here.

They fully support the Russian invasion

wut? Even lemmygrad.ml doesn't - their support of the Russian Federation's invasion has always been critical, not full. Just like their support for Hamas is critical - it's extremely obvious that neither the capitalist-run RF nor the Islamist Hamas are groups they agree with at all.

(I am not a campist, I'm simply explaining the campist concept of "critical support")

They fully support the Russian invasion and genocide of Ukraine though, hence the hypocrisy.

Did you know that inventing "genocides" based on perceived vibes and presenting them as equivalent to extremely real, well-documented, and universally agreed upon actual genocides is a form of genocide denial? Liberals such as yourself have been doing the work of fascists like this for a long time, this type of Holocaust denial is called "double genocide theory".

There is no genocide in Ukraine. Ukranians are Russians.

Yeah, probably the South African white genocide too, right?

Idk where you got that those sites don't defend Jews. I feel very supported in those places, and the moderation on Hexbear at least takes antisemitism seriously(I can't say for the other two because I'm on there less often, but I'm yet to hear anything that would make me doubt that they defend their Jewish users as well)

Communists absolutely defend Jewish peoples, Zionism is anti-semitic, especially anti-Yiddish. We also don't "simp for authoritarian regimes," we support socialist systems where the working classes hold the authority in society, rather than capitalists. None of this is "simping," I support worker-run structures because it's more equitable and democratic.

In no way shape or form Ukraine is a genocide. By using that term for both Palestine and Ukraine you are just demeaning the word, and actually helping the propaganda against Palestine.

Ukraine is defending its sovereignty, and it is experiencing a national aggression by Russia, but what Israel is doing to Gaza is in a different sphere.

Jesus Christ. Westerners really are the most propagandized people on earth.

The communists spent the decade prior to World War II trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.

When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.

Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:

If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.

Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few decades prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.

The communists were responsible for 80% of the total Nazi casualties. The communists beat the Nazis.

It just shows how some people know jack shit and still throw their opinions around LMAO

I have downvoted. You are a zionist defending genocidal pedo murders and your opinion is disregarded. You do not deserve any reply but just to be bullied. Fascist cunt fuck.

Love how someone is using that exact same mwog thread to show how the feddit admin was wronged

Sorry, but this is not how you talk to people.

I mean look at ml.

You mean the place constantly flooded by disagreeing liberals? Let's be honest here; by "echo chamber" you just mean "place where my ideology isn't the default"

No. Having instances with varying approaches to defederation is good for the fediverse. Having no defederation is how you end up with nostr.

If my instance didn't defederate hexbear I wouldn't be on the fediverse at all.

I think defederation only really makes sense if there is a concern of botting. Individual bad actors should be banned on a case by case basis, blanket banning seems shortsighted. However, I do believe there are bots on some instances now, compared to say a year ago where I believe they were more far and few between.

Part of my issue is also with bad actors “flooding the zone”. If enough noise is getting pushed constantly by bad actors/bots, it can sway public opinion just by virtue of people seeing those opinions more often. This was one of the things that killed Reddit for me, personally. Well that and a slew of other issues.

it is important for people to be able to build spaces that provide community for people who have perfectly legitimate reasons for not wanting certain things around.

unfortunately providing that functionality inherently provides the functionality to create echo chambers for arbitrary reasons

you cannot have one without the other and I'd rather have both than neither

When avoiding ideas or being challenged yes. When avoiding abuse no

This is only the case if you're annoyed by people disagreeing with you. That's what makes echo chambers.

Does no one here understand the younger generations access to ideas? I think the idea that every one claims of creating echo chambers is not an effective one. The law of diminishing returns (as a business term) states that all else held equal an increase in production( or the free debate or posting of opinions) will not produce more profit after a certain point ( or the changing of others opinions) . When it comes to people posting and espousing for state sponsored genocide I think we have hit the top of that curve. If you stop the flow of that information you are not creating echo chambers but more effectively stopping the spread of bullshit and hate. They have Xhitter. Fucking ban this genocidal shit every chance you get, either foundationally or personally. I dont get a whiff of this on shitjust works because I dont engage with it.

Some of the options can’t be discussed on lemmy.world because of rule 1.

And it’s not like we don’t have a down vote button.

I've been banned from communities merely for downvoting posts in them. Such behavior is toxic (on the part of the community's mods, not me), but that doesn't stop it from happening.

Maybe Im not saying this right: Im wasnt arguing for the virtues of echo chambers with that, Im saying, with how fedi is designed, there is no means to prevent someone that wants to make an echo chamber from doing so, so suggesting that one should not allow an echo chamber to exist is a fool's errand. In a more general sense, it seems to me that, either you let people decide what kind of content to see, in which case many if not most will naturally create echo chambers simply because they dont want to see views too different from their own, or you have some means to force people to see stuff they dont want to, which requires some difficult-to-escape authority have power over their media feed and as such is incompatible with decentralized federation (and of course risks that authority pushing everyone into their echo chamber). Both of those things lead to serious issues in my view, so its a bit of a "pick your poison" situation when it comes to social media design. Beyond that though, it does have to be acknowledged that there is simply more content, more messages and people wanting to spread their word, out there than any given person has the time or attention or mental capacity to process. That means that some system must exist that determines what fraction of it all you actually see (even if its just as simple as "the things most recently posted on a given platform when you looked at it"). I can see no way to do this that doesnt introduce biases.

They even gave them a finger wag! Israel is really brave to stand strong against such antisemitism! /s

So no negotiations and no two-state solution then? What do you want?

Like people do with thr ml users?