The same people who rage against authority love moderating communities where their ideology is the only one allowed
Anarchy is very cool, until someone has the wrong opinion.
252
Comments187View original on lemmy.dbzer0.com
Anarchy is very cool, until someone has the wrong opinion.
Looking at you, leftymemes
ugh
groupthink central, do NOT divert an inch from the state sanctioned opinions, OR ELSE
It's all fun and games until you say that China is wearing socialism as a cloak the same way America wears Christianity or Israel wears anti-semitism.
People's takes on China here are so clueless and weird.
Xi is essentially a dictator at this point. Like Putin, he has systematiclly consolidated power over the years and increasingly removed any federation of government power that was more in line with socialist ideals and power structures. China was more socialist 30 years ago than it is today, and the USSR was far less centralized than Russia is now. But we can't let the facts get in the way of the ideals.
Israeli's problem is also the same, the consolidation of power in a single person that increasingly fails to manifest the democratic ideas on which it argues its cultural superiority.
I’ve seen better moderation in .ml instances.
Uh oh. One or the other found you, here comes the brigade!
I’ve been brigaded by better instances.
"You are allowed to do anything you want, so long as it's exactly what we say"
Hey! I will have you know that we're are all different and unique in exactly the same way.
Dbshitters are alt-left and should be treated in the same way as any libertarian nutjob.
This is very true - I usually refer to it as "BOFH behavior". I think it stems from many people who end up hosting or moderating feeling that they themselves have been marginalised before so "now they're going to show them!".
A great example is a Mastodon instance where if you don't agree with the site's admin they'll block you at the server level instead of from their personal account. The belief is that if they have an opinion that opinion must then be enforced for everyone else under their control too.
unmoderated internet spaces are quickly overrun with bigotry, csam, and spam.
if, in the name of "free speech", you only moderate the csam and spam, the space will be primarily occupied by people looking for a forum that welcomes bigotry.
respect to @[email protected] for rm'ing bigotry and not letting childish anarchist free speech ideals cause lemmy.dbzer0.com to be a nazi bar 🥂
::: spoiler see also:
It's a misunderstanding of anarchy to equate it with either total chaos or total control. True anarchism is about opposing coercive authority, not creating a new, rigid authority that dictates what discourse is acceptable.
You can absolutely oppose bigotry and harm (which are coercive actions) without resorting to silencing anyone who doesn't conform to a specific ideological viewpoint. Genuine community defense is about voluntary association and preventing harassment, not about restricting the exchange of ideas.
Eh?
Coercive authority is how we enforce rules that not everyone agrees with. Rules like "don't rape your kids". The answer shouldn't be "they get their own community but we kick them out of ours", right?
I really, really hope that having rules against molesting kids aren't the only thing keeping you from doing it.
I really, really, hope that you can understand that for some percentage of the population, morality isn't a guardrail, & that has been visible for millenia.
The person you're replying-to isn't the only person in the world, & evidence is that without coercive-force & enforcement & enforced-accountability, then DarkTriad IS GOING TO rule the world, no matter what, & making-believing isn't going to prevent that.
It isn't "mere coincidence" that NOT fighting organized-crime ends-up with them running the territory, and it being impossible to root them out.
Ask northern Mexico how it went for them with their insufficient-enforcement paradigm, & then they lost control of the territory, & can't get it back.
IF you have an immune-system, THEN you systematically assault & kill pathogens, within your own body.
THAT is the fundamental-fact of viability in natural, competitive ecologies, inhabited by pathogens, parasites, cancers, & their equivalents.
All the people who live in goddamn making-believing that "utopia is the natural default: all we have to do is remove all structure, & it will spontaneously arise, blessing all of our lives" are fucking incompetent at knowing actual-human-nature & actual-human-history.
Go without an immune-system, with AIDS, & no medication, & see how long it takes for pathogens to destroy your life.
Will you live multiple months? Your avg remaining lifespan should be somewhere between 1/30th & 1/100th of the average human lifespan, right? Something like that.
If, after they've done that, THEN they'd have validity to stand-on, about no civil-immune-system being required, except that they'd be gone, just as their making-believing wants us gone/nonviable.
"Snakes in Suits" had a perfect vignette in it:
a psychopath who'd been let out on a daypass butchered-up somebody.
they couldn't understand why that was a problem, because it had been ages since they'd done it last-time!!
Utopian morons who pretend that diversity never could extend to THAT kind of diversity, get other-people slaughtered.
And that isn't tolerable.
IF somebody wants to live in lala-land, THEN it is THER lives which ought be available for the monsters to butcher, NOT random innocent others.
Won't-grow-up should automatically get one removed from authority, including voting-authority.
This race, humankind, isn't viable, unless it grows-the-fuck-up, quickly.
& if it won't, then the universe is going to be scoured-of-it by next century.
All because ignorance is "more comfy" than growing TF up, .. & in the deathmatch between the 2, humankind sides with ignorance, obliterating upright-objective-integrity.
Bring it on: universe's LAW is Natural Selection, & we pretend we know reality, but our behavior contradicts what we say, consistently.
Universe is the only judge of whether any of us exist next century, NOT our making-believing.
Sorry to be absolutely fed-up with won't-think, no matter how fashionable & politically-acceptable it is, but humankind's on the traintracks, and the rumbling of the oncoming-train is thrumming the rails, now.
_ /\ _
You’re right, predators exist, and ignoring that is dangerous. But coercive systems don’t solve the root problem; they just move it around. Prisons don’t stop abuse, they concentrate it. Cops don’t end corruption, they institutionalize it. The illusion is that punishment equals justice, when really, it just perpetuates the cycle of suffering: hurt people hurt people, and systems that rely on domination will always produce more of both.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences. It’s consequences without hate and domination. A world where harm is met with accountability and prevention at the root level, not exile and fear of punishment. The question shouldn't be "How do we punish?" but "How did we fail this person, and how do we stop failing each other?" That’s not softness. That’s seeing through the delusion of separation, the idea that "monsters" are a different species, not products of the same broken systems we all inherit. It's the admission that IF NOT FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR GENETIC MAKEUP AND YOUR ENVIRONMENT, you would be exactly as dangerous and harmful. True safety doesn’t come from bigger cages. It comes from communities that refuse to abandon their own, even the difficult ones.
And yes there are cases where the only answer is to keep someone harmful separate from the rest but it's possible to do that out of love and care towards those that they would harm, NOT out of hate towards them as a demonized "other". I'm talking about being pre-emptive, which requires ability for people to have open discourse. It requires the ability to rationally look at horrible behavior and address the causes.
Anarchism is not about zero enforcement of rules. Especially wise ones like don't dittle kids...
There's more to human behavior than expressing ideas of correct behavior and violent enforcement of those ideas. Both of those are very limited, rely on oversimplified abstractions of how people are, and often have adverse side effects. What we are like and how we live is a complex product of how we engage and relate to our environment and the people around us; the best overall solutions to problems will be holistic improvements to that environment.
To extend your medical analogy, sometimes serious threats to your health call for antibiotics, but it is not the case that scouring your body of foreign organisms will make you healthier in the absence of an antibiotic-treatable threat, it's actually important to have those.
Bringing it back to how online spaces are organized, I think it's important for most people to feel like there is a way to express their genuine thoughts because if it's all just people finding different ways to repeat a dogma, that's a failure of communication, communication is not meaningfully happening, and an environment where you are unable to communicate is a shitty and dysfunctional one. That doesn't mean all spaces must accept all points of view, but sincere and open communication should generally be a priority, protecting that is what free expression is about.
When I said that morality isn't a guardrail, I meant there are people who avoid chopping others up because they don't want to be interfered-with by enforcement, but they have no intrinsic problem with chopping others up because others are only meat-marionettes ( broken mirror-neuron-system people )
It isn't a question of being wholistic, it is a problem that they can't understand why anybody would have any problem with butchering human lives .. and that's a different-category.
Please read "Snakes in Suits".
The stuff I'd read was of other books, but the quote I saw from that was perfect.
_ /\ _
You can hope all you want that I'm not a pedophile, and coincidentally I'm not, but some people are. For some people, the only reason they're not doing it is because they're in jail for doing it.
And that's my problem with all of these explanations of anarchy that I've heard. They all rely on people being fundamentally good and choosing to do the right thing together as a society. And most people are like that. But a not insignificant amount of others aren't.
How would anarchy handle those people?
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/24695927
Responded to someone else.
That doesn't actually answer the question. You make some very good points about the futility of our current mode of criminal punishment. I very much agree. But you offer no solutions that would require anarchy or benefit from it.
A centralized institution to implement all the changes that you mentioned is absolutely something a government would be more capable of.
Start building what works now, where you are.
Every reform you like started as people organizing. The second the state touches it, it turns care into control. Prisons, cops, "rehab", all began as community ideas. Now they’re cages.
Anarchy isn’t "no system." It’s systems we control. Local, adaptable, replaceable. The state just standardizes failure.
you're applying this to an internet community that has no real world interaction as a group. i think it's okay to be authoritarian on your own channel lol.
Absolutely. But don't pretend to be an anarchist then. Be actually honest about your views and people may then (as per anarchist thought) choose for themselves if they want to get on board with that or not.
i don't see those as incompatible. you can be an anarchist and very controlling over your own online space.
Again, as long as you're very explicit about it. But don't call it an anarchist space. It's then a space, run by an anarchist, that doesn't follow the rules of anarchism.
tell me you've never been in a non-internet anarchist space without telling me 😂
(hint: offline anarchist bars tend not to tolerate fascists either)
😭
(this is a bit, right?)
Schrödinger Anarchist: both has and hasn't rules.
shrug i mean i guess but there is nothing about enforcing regulation that is anti-anarchist.
Enforcing regulation and enforcing one's own personal views are two different things. This entire convo is supposed to focus on the latter, not confuse them with each other.
Yeah the problem is that these people are deciding that "I am a nazi and I think white people are the supreme race and I want to install a fascist state" and "I don't think China is actually socialist" are both nazi, fascist, bigoted speech, and then people like you are saying "no that doesn't happen they only go after the bad stuff every single time and never get anything wrong".
It's ironic you state it like this, since we are an explicitly anarchist server ;)
it's not really ironic as i am well aware that you are and i appreciate you for that :)
what i'm saying is that i'm glad that, despite obviously being a (fellow!) proponent of freedom of expression, you haven't fallen victim to the childish line of thought which leads some people to let their spaces become nazi bars. so: thanks!
People keep setting up these Punching bars and then get mad when their patrons get Punched.
They banned me for asking if fascism with human rights could be possible.
The interesting part is that it could be that despite the west's support for human rights we could already be in a form of fascism. But that discussion could't be had because the question already triggered a ban.
So I think banning helps to keep an instance clean but it also prevents interesting discussions.
Migrants and refugees are under constant attack throughout the west. The US has secret police racially profiling, beating, killing, illegally kidnapping and disappearing people. Civil rights are rapidly being restricted and rolled back. Israel does a genocide and bombs every county in it's vicinity while the west offers it's boots, bombs, and blessings.
The west doesn't support human rights, and the fascists are already in power.
Unfortunately as a society we believe that we support human rights so as a society we are not ready to face our fascist traits.
I don't think it's fair or productive to conflate America or Israel with "the West".
First of all, it's an ancient term used to describe sides in a conflict long since over, in some cases containing countries that don't even exist anymore.
Secondly, it includes countries that actively oppose the US and Israel's actions, like Ireland, or Spain.
Third, it doesn't make any fucking sense, because it includes Japan, which is about as far east as you can get.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ7wB4rm5Hw
Cope
Okay, I'll bite. I need to add to my block list anyway.
Y'all have heard of the Nazi Bar problem, right? Paradox of intolerance? Which turns out not to be a paradox after all? You should def look that one up rather than waiting for me to type it all out.
People like to refer to the paradox of tolerance but always skip out on the inconvenient bit:
""Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
— In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.""
If you are not able to rationally argue why we shouldn't be bigoted, I don't know what to tell you.
One problem with bigots is they dont care about truth or logic. Its a waste of time to continually argue the same points over and over again with people who refuse to learn or think.
But remember, be sure that your point is logical and truthful, and not parroting talking points in spite of them being repeated all around you.
Being truthful and logical is not always a popular position. Some would say it's not even often the popular position.
You personally don't have to. Always plenty of people out there willing to do it for you.
it's not that people can't, but spaces which have unlimited tolerance for sealions suggesting that it's necessary to argue about that are likely to have less interesting discussions than spaces which do not 🙄
Then be clear about the rules. I have 0 problems with people creating communities with very clear rules on what is allowed and what isn't. I wholeheartedly welcome that. What I take issue with is when people claim to have open discussion, or the space is for "rational discourse", or "anarchist" discourse etc. but then ban everything that doesn't very exactly align with the mod ideology.
If most people waving the anarchist flag would admit they're just doing it because it's cool but actually, they just want to be the authoritarians in place of the authoritarians, that would be fine. I'd happily avoid them. Problem is that when they don't admit it, they drag down the whole anarchist ideology because they are misrepresenting it.
key words there are discourse and discussion.
As is explained in a few responses to your paradox of tolerance reply (that you seem to have conveniently not replied to so far), the kind of discussion or conversation they are referencing requires both parties to be working in good faith.
from your own reference
If one party can't or won't provide logic or reasoning to their side of an exchange, that's not a discussion because there is nothing to discuss with someone not willing to engage in good faith.
There are absolutely places that are ideological echo chambers, despite claiming otherwise, but banning someone for the inability (or unwillingness) to engage in good faith isn't a removal based on ideology it's a removal based on not adhering to the basic tenets of how discussions are supposed to work.
If it just so happens that most of that kind of banning happens to people with ideologies you subscribe to, perhaps it's worth considering how you can help these people understand how to have an actual conversation.
That all being said, from what i've seen here I’d guess you're on the purposeful bad faith side of things so I’m not expecting any reasonable consideration, but feel free to surprise me (or block me, i suppose).
You're making quite a lot of frankly weird assumptions.
Find a single line from me where I'm saying that people who don't engage in rational discourse shouldn't be kicked out.
In fact, have a honest think. How much of your response is based on a knee jerk reaction instead of actually looking at what I've been saying in this thread?
I've clearly stated what i'm referring to and how i got there, if you think there is an unsupported statement then reference it directly and i will respond.
That being said, fuck, i think i've seen two posts next to each other and missed where it changed from them to you.
That's entirely my bad and i apologise, my response was supposed to be for the other person.
No hard feelings :)
Not sure what theme you're using but at least for me the default one makes it a bit hard to separate replies. I still like it most of all for just lurking.
You have it backwards.
Rational discourse, pragmatically speaking, is discourse that starts from agreed upon premises. Anarchists thing the only rational discourse there is, is one that agrees with anarchism's superiority over other political systems of thought and organization.
And secondly, people appeal to high minded ideals like 'rational discourse' not because they practice them, but because they give them a sense of authority. Each mod of each flavor on anarchism believes theirs is the best, otherwise why would they believe in it?
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to."
Though it is occasionally possible to point out how their arguments don't stand up to scrutiny and get them to engage on it.
Only works with the ones not doing it on purpose, however.
i mean, seems you're also conveniently skipping over the part that says:
it's right there in the text:
popper states outright, that there are some ideologies and by extension people, that straight-up cannot be argued with. these, therefore, must be excluded from the community, and thereby form the limit to tolerance that must be enforced.
people really love to misinterpret popper...
what goes along nicely with the tolerance of paradox is the quote about anti-semites being entirely aware of how absurd their position truly are:
take both popper and sartre together into consideration of a larger context and it becomes abundantly obvious that a certain minimum of intolerance is strictly necessary for a functional society.
what happens when all checks on speech are removed can be clearly seen in the rotting corpses of facebook and twitter... it's disastrous.
We are all bigoted.
The idea is we have institutions that minimize our bigotry by not being subject to the judgements of any one particular person and their biases.
People who claim some absolute stance of non-bigotry... are basically the most likely to engage in bigotry because they deny it is even possible they could be.
People who whinge on about the the paradox of intolerance are always cunts who want to have a reason to beat people up because it makes them feel big. It's a stupid argument either way, because there is no such thing as unlimited tolerance, and no society is ever 'free'.
Just to let you know before I block you, I didn't read your "reasonable disagreement" of a wall of text
You mean the direct quote of Popper that you yourself referred to? You didn't read the very piece of text you told me to read?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
so I guess you have an intolerance to intolerance?
Lemmy is a Tankie Bar.
Okay, that's just funny. Hi friend
Bullshit genetic or reductio ad hitlerum fallacy. Carried to its logical conclusion, anything tainted by Nazis (eg, the universe) is a Nazi bar. Have you considered finding yourself another universe to inhabit, since this one is irredeemably tainted? While we may argue the universe is far too vast to be a "Nazi bar", so is the internet or any "platform".
Worse, censoring ideas gives them covert power. It doesn't discredit them or strip them of power like challenging them in a public forum could. It's also a disservice to better ideas
Censorship is incompetent advocacy: it mistakes suppressing the expression of bad ideas for effective advocacy that directly discredits bad ideas, develops intellectual growth, and steers toward better ideas.
The bogus social media version subverting the original message or the real one?
:::spoiler text alternative
The True Paradox of Tolerance
By philosopher Karl Popper1
You think you know the Popper Paradox thanks to this? (👉 comic from pictoline.com)
Karl Popper: I never said that!
Popper argued that society via its institutions should have a right to prohibit those who are intolerant.
Karl Popper: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
For Popper, on what grounds may society suppress the intolerant? When they "are not prepared to meet on the level of rational argument" "they forbid their followers to listen to rational argument … & teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols". The argument of the intolerably intolerant is force & violence.
We misconstrue this paradox at our peril … to the extent that one group could declare another group 'intolerant' just to prohibit their ideas, speech & other freedoms.
Grave sign: "The Intolerant" RIP
Underneath it lies a pile of symbols for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Black power. A leg labeled tolerance kicks the Gay Pride symbol into the pile.
Muchas gracias a @lokijustice y asivaespana.com ::: Karl Popper opposed censorship/argued for free inquiry & open discourse.
Censorship (or willfully blinding ourselves to information) plays no part in suppressing authoritarianism.
Only cowards fear words. Words are not the danger. It's the dangerous people whose words we fail to discredit.
Footnotes
Source: The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl R. Popper ↩
So how is that different when it’s online vs offline?
You know that anarchism doesn't mean no rules right? It just means no rulers, but that's not how it works on Lemmy or any social media of this type for that matter.
...anywhere in reality.
Humans spent thousands of years without rulers. Also, look at all the grassroots organizations trying to stop fascism in America right now.
Leaders are dispensable AND disposable. We do not need them.
orly? which thousands?
when we lived in peaceful harmony with the dinosaurs.
before the evil comet fell and brought rulers upon us and the dinosaurs were forced under the earth to become lizard people.
Ah yes, the beforetimes, how could I forget.
I have a pretty low opinion of moderators generally.
In the vast majority of cases, the people who actually want to be moderators are precisely the worst kinds of people to do the job.
Of course there are exceptions but all too often they're doing it because they like the power and attention.
I think many people feel this way, and I think in many cases another thing that plays into it is not realising the amount of good moderators, because good moderation usually doesn't make as much noise as when it's bad.
If I think of all the communities in lemmy/piefed I like, the perfect/near perfect moderation from my browsing heavily outweighs anything problematic.
How do you see overly heavy opinion based moderation if you're never the target of it? You don't. You just see communities that are weirdly same-think. Though I bet you'd just dismiss it as a consequence of the fediverse already self-selecting for a certain type, but that is wrong.
There is bad moderation all over the place, but you don't see it, because many mods/admins prefer to ban and delete than to let the vote system do its job.
That's why I rigorously review the modlog. Unlike Reddit or other social media, there is a public record of everything every mod does.
and what happens when a mod or admin abuses their power? If the answer is only people whine about it, all you have is a minor step in the right direction and not an actual solution.
Make an alternate community on another instance without abusive admins.
Lemmy/Piefed is far more resistant to bad actor community capture by a capricious moderator. Instance admins are usually far closer to the day-to-day operations and thus have their pulse on their communities in a way that reddit admins do not. Secondly, the federative nature of it means that any community can be replicated elsewhere.
By noticing people complaining about it :) Also being aware of certain biases and such, and looking for the existence of posts that would be deleted if the bias was heavy, etc.
Sure, some stuff might fall under the radar or stay for a long time, definitely a thing.
Nah, the complaints get deleted faster than the wrong-think. The point is you aren't given enough to 'notice' when the hammer comes down as it does in many communities here.
That's also why there are mod abuse report comms. There's more than one, too, since some of the originals are on an instance with an abusive admin.
So then why is this still here?
Because this is hardly a contentious discussion or topic, and something doesn't have to be a guarantee to never the less be a trend..?
I remember I was an administrator, and the moderator threatened to ban me. That was fun, I was like "Oh no, please don't". And I just played along.
As an administrator, I had only 2 modes: Not sure, can't ban this person without more evidence, and "that is a liability, shut down the server!". So I didn't react to most things that were done, even if they were technically against the rules. Then when I became the owner, I set a pol for people to decide if I should just delete the server, because I knew I didn't have the time to make sure some truly heinous stuff does not happen.
Yeah that's fair.
Being an administrator is different, you don't volunteer for that task because you like the attention.
I feel this. I used to volunteer for some local groups but don't presently as I have a young family and it's all consuming.
Are you really comparing a completely optional forum to a society where people can and will point guns at you?
"They don't let me spread transphobic rhetoric in this optional community online, literally 1984!"
Some of those who moderate postses!
*Tom Morello has entered the chat
Bert Kreischer has been banned from the chat
From my experience, no moderator enjoys the job. And the job is tougher than you think.
I'm well aware of the challenges, having modded several communities. Which is exactly why I would never do the thing that so many people here do and make themselves the mods of 20+ political communities.
They sure love the powertrip tho, which more than makes up for it
You have to lick the correct footwear.
Aannndddd..... people "wonder why" nothing changes, when THEIR pack/herd/tribe gains power, or when another's does: it just goes 'round & 'round & 'round, again.
Until one has fundamentally altered one's own unconscious-mind,
altering one's own nature,
then the same nature as what created the problems we're caught-in, is all one has to wield.
"physician, 1st heal thyself" is the key, but nobody's got the guts to enforce the deep transformation.
( & I'm saying that while having failed to break unconscious-ignorance from this-incarnation/life, thus-far, myself, for decades.
It isn't easy, but if one never tries, it'll never have more than 0% chance of happening.
it'd be easier in a culture which accepted such transformations as valid, fersure, but that got eradicated by materialism, didn't it? )
aka Spot-on, [email protected] , spot-on.
( :
_ /\ _
Aannndddd… yeah. The "round and round" is what happens when we mistake performative rebellion for actual change. Most of us know the system’s broken, but we’d rather rage at the symptoms than admit we’re part of the pattern. You’re dead right about the "physician, heal thyself" bit, except nobody wants to do the boring work of actually examining why they crave control, whether it’s over a Lemmy community or a state. Easier to just slap a label on the ‘enemy’ and call it a day.
True rebellion against fascism starts with the self.
"If everyone just has a Buddha epiphany then we can finally break free from authoritarianism" is certainly a take
It's not possible, because anyone who realizes "I am the nazi" and enforces justice, is dead, or worse. You won't be hearing these voices of reason, unless they did well from the start.
Anybody who sees Authority as a responsability is naturally averse to having it because they would feel the weight of it and would feel bad if, whilst holding Authority, they made a mistake and others got in some way hurt because of that.
Those who see Authority as power to advance something (be it their own personal upsides or some idea they believe in) with little or no feeling of responsability towards others (be it not all directly or they've suppressed it by convincing themselves their actions are somehow "for the greater good" hence any bad they do with the authority has that grand excuse to salve their conscience), have no such aversion to holding authority.
That posture towards authority of people of the second kind applies more broadly to all manner of things which serve to pressure, convince or manipulate others (Authority is generally power force something on others) so of course they also have no aversion to using other such tools, including using ideology to manipulate others, and sometimes that means passing themselves as somebody who holds a certain ideology, and that includes Anarchism.
So yeah, you're going to find that certain people who parrot Anarchist talk aren't in fact people whose Principles mean they're naturally Anarchist but rather people being Performative Anarchists in order to fit-in and manipulate others driven by entirelly different Principles, and such people are absolutelly pro-Authority as long as they're in control of it.
In summary, there are two types of people who seem Anarchist:
IMHO, the best way to spot the second kind from the first is to look for the often repetition of common slogans and having a superficial level of ideology with no actual tracing back to personal principles since they learned the ideology at an intellectual level rather than being drived by their Principles - i.e. what feels Right and what feels Wrong - to finding that formal ideology as something that fits them.
By the way, this method to identify the real ones from the performers also works for all other ideologies and even things like Faith - start paying attention and you'll spot all manner of teatrics around ideologies all across the entire political spectrum as well as in people professing some faith or other.
Just wanted to say this is a fantastic take. 100% agree.
Too many people want to argue in the sense they are a 'greater' authority than you, to try to force you into agreement with them. And generally lack any ability to genuinely reflect on themselves, their actions, or the flaws/contradictions often inherent in their ideology. So ultimately they just fall back on slogans as self-evident truths that must be preached and obeyed.
That's very different than actually reading the source material of an ideology. How many Anarchists have read Bakunin? Anytime someone claims to be anarchist I love asking them that and looking at the total look of confusion on their face...
Just tell them that moral absolutism benefits the status-quo.
Because it's true. It does. I think it's actually a psyop by the capitalists to prevent socialism ever taking a foothold or affecting their money. Capitalists are afraid of positive incremental change, so they tricked leftists into being afraid of it too.
I don't love moderating my communities at all. I barely even read the reports. 🤷♂️
I mean this may be decentralized but its still social media. Its gonna be a cesspool by nature of social media.
This
the shit always rises to the top.
and to find the good stuff you have to wade through it.
The same people who rage against authority and advocate prison abolition seem to love becoming "dungeon masters."
I think "being able to select which community(ies) one is part of and having the ability to opt out" vs being born into it is a key differentiator.
Fwiw, I'm not part of any moderating teams.
Mommy and daddy keep going on about horizontalism but then they make me go to bed even when I don't want to >:(
it's the nature of people.
they love to dog pile on the 'outsider'. and they also love to circle up the wagons over a perceived threat.
so what happens is outsiders form their own little tightly knit and hostile tribes. social media greatly expanded the specificity by which people identify themselves. so you have raw milk nutjobs jerking each other off over their 'pasturization is an evil conspiracy to ruin our immune systems' inside their little bubbles and feeling like big smart geniuses because everyone else is an dumb sheep who has been duped by Louis Pasteur's evil invention.
No one is making you be here. You can click a button and start your own community or even spin up your own server and if your modding policies are that much better people will switch. ...or none or very few of the users like what you say and the mod just happens to be the one responsible for telling you.
Is it frustrating to be part of the outgroup? Sure. Is it frustrating to have an opinion people dislike or don't think is worth leaving their ingroup for? Sure. But that's just called being a weirdo. Lots of people are weirdos. I'm a weirdo. In fact it's often hard for me to get certain things done or find certain products. Bigelow doesn't stock my favorite flavor in most stores because it's not popular enough. That's not oppression that's just being unpopular.
Being a weirdo isn't for the faint of heart. Dialectal behavior therapy changed my life and teaches four ways to approach a problem. 1. Stop seeing it as a problem. 2. Fix the problem (conform). 3. Accept the problem. 4. Stay whiny. I tend to vacillate between 1 and 3 (sigh sadly and order my tea online) but I spend little time engaging in #4 (bitching online about how it's other people's fault).
I'm not even going to look into your specific ideology. With people who say these things I often regret finding out.
what's frustrating the most is how people hate you for factual true opinions, because those truths don't align with their delusional worldview.
true, it's ultimately about popularity. And what's popular... is often stupid, wrong, and cruel. Dialectical behavior won't do anything when you are getting harassed and assaulted, and increasingly we live in a world where people are become not just disagreeing and segregating, but straight up calling violent and bloodthirsty to those they disagree with.
Lemmy is rife with very pro-violence people. Who also claim they are anti-violence. But you know, only anti-violence against the 'good' people. Violence totally col against the 'bad' people.
oh god that's it; you're an utterly insufferable person. And learning how to constructively approach injustice by conserving and directing your energy towards actions that will make the most real difference is a core goal of the therapy. Either put in the effort to become someone people want to be around or accept people don't want to be around you.
right, so if an external reality gets in the way of my feelings, I should simple ignore and or deny that it exists? if someone makes me feel bad they are bad person! such a constructive and mature way to approach other people.
I have no problem being around people who acknowledge there is a world outside of themselves. I don't get along with people who think the world is merely an extension of their feelings, or that any information that doesn't make them feel fuzzy is horrible and evil.
I mean i'm glad you don't think facts exist or reality exists outside of the thoughts in your head, and therefore nobody else is real, but most well-adjusted people don't engage in solipsism. If the acknowledgement of other people existing who are different than you is so painful, the issue isn't them. It's you.
also calling for violence isn't a constructive approach injustice, it's authoritarianism and bullying. just like you resorted to harassment and name calling in reply to my comment, per ad hominem nonsense because I said something you find upsetting and dislike. you can't create 'justice' by perpetuating injustice on other people, but if you live in a world of your own emotions, nothing like justice even exists. because justice isn't a feeling, it's a concept that is suppose to get you outside of your own monkey-brain way of thinking.
in misanthropy we call this being human
This reads like a freeze peach kinda thought.
Toddler thoughts
If people are trolling, they can get banned and troll elsewhere. That's common sense, right?
And one might say they didn't mean to troll, which just means they need to lurk moar.
Not true for everyone. But sure, I understand the idea. Its just that i know people who hate authority and because of that, they know how to act with compassion instead. They dont speak bad of others and they dont have a lot of ego to defend.
The best leaders are reluctant to even have power. And they see it more as a responsibility to do right by the people.
I dont see that type of leader in America at all, but they exist in real life in Europe.
They exist in the US you don't hear about them because those leaders don't make good headlines.
... You realise that that's because a forum moderator has no meaningful amount of actual power, right?
If they don't have meaningful power, then neither do people who would abuse any space they're in, rendering moderating wholly pointless. But people sure don't like that idea.
It's all about powerplay and finding the best rhetoric that plays best with your level of charisma to try to whitewash it with. Sometimes it's also used as a filter because it inherently attract a certain type of person in those communities sort of like r/conservative in reddit attracts a certain type of person. The modern social network is a lot about being able to create and grow your own cults on demand.
Say what you will about reddit, lemmy has plenty of brain dead people as well, and in some ways they are even more cultified.
Isn't a tankie an authoritarian communist or am I getting wires crossed here? I thought the term was coined from the 56 stamping out of the Hungarian revolution with tanks by authoritarians.... Not sure that's something I'd be proud of but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Can you tell me what nazi viewpoints are promoted on Piefed please? Be specific.
Rimu considers the viewpoint that the 1930s famine in the soviet union being a combination of mismanagement and adverse weather conditions, rather than a deliberate targeting of ethnic groups, to be "genocide denial" and thus worthy of total censorship. This is despite the fact that the mainstream contemporary opinion on the 1930s famine even among reputable liberal historians is that it was as I said.
For instance, Mark Tauger wrote:
Tauger believes it was a failure of economic policy, not an intentional attack on ethnic Ukrainians. The 1930s famine was a combination of drought, flooding, and mismanagement. Further, the Kulaks, wealthy bourgeois farmers, magnified matters by killing their own crops in the midst of a famine rather than letting the Red Army collectivize them.
This, to Rimu, is considered to be genocide denial. This is despite Wikipedia's own acknowledgement that "scholars continue to debate whether the human-made Soviet famine was a central act in a campaign of genocide,[169] or a tragic byproduct of rapid Soviet industrialization and the collectivization of agriculture.[170]:"
Further, Rimu repeats the far-right McCain Institute talking points about supposed "organ harvesting" in China towards the far-right Falun Gong cult:
And this is despite the fact [that no supporting evidence for this conspiracy theory has been found](Here’s an example of investigating claims made by the Falun Gong about organ harvesting, with no evidence found, even from western investigation.)
Overall, Rimu in particular promotes an unquestioning, dogmatic view of history that goes well beyond what's considered definitive even in the west. Rimu also therefore uses the admin position of PieFed.social to silence any reasonable, developed dissent, no matter how well-sourced.
Was that specific enough?
These are not Nazi viewpoints. Moreover, he doesn't "promote" them other than anyone else promoting what they say as specific users. You think anyone who believes the Holodomor was genocide is a nazi? That's your definition?
So if I held a similar position on the Holodomor, that would make me a nazi according to you?
The propogation of far-right views by PieFed users and the head dev is what @[email protected] is referring to.
You think believing the Holodomor is a genocide is inherently far-right? I don't think either of them are inherently far-right (especially not the former). Also, by "users" you specifically mean Rimu here. Would others hold the same opinion? Sure. But they also do so across the Threadiverse - not specifically on piefed, or piefed.social in specific. If you're going to accuse Piefed of being specifically far-right on this basis, then you have to also throw that at most other instance - which they didn't do.
Can you answer why you’re insistent on analyzing processes outside of the context they exist in? If you’re not going to respond to my criticisms of your metaphysical outlook from last time, then defend it, otherwise all I can do is continue to point out that you keep trying to slice away context and view processes in a vacuum that doesn’t exist and doesn’t represent reality accurately as a consequence.
It seems to me to be self-evident that it just isn't nazi to claim the holodomor was a genocide. You may think it's wrong, incorrect, perhaps suggestive of unjustified prejudice against communism - but it just isn't nazi. It's a nasty vile smear to throw at people. No context makes it so (not even remotely sure what you're referring to in this case). Rimu is not anti-semitic, Rimu is not a white supremacist, Rimu does not support a one-party authoritarian dictatorship.
And even if it was: If you’re going to accuse Piefed of being specifically far-right or nazi on this basis, then you have to also throw that at most other instances - which the other user didn’t do here.
Banned from that specific community, or banned from the instance entirely? Because being banned from the instance, which did happen, was not for that reason.
Sorry, do you hold the same accusations to lemmy.zip too, as the user is from that instance? Are they also not nazis by your logic?
Also, are you saying anyone who looks past any threat, or inciendary language or violent rhetoric of any kind to someone who is a communist, no matter the specific context is automatically a nazi?
So you don't apparently expect lemmy.zip to respond to users like that, but you do in piefed.social? What? Because the lemmy.zip user did it on a remote community? Also, how do you know the instance ban and community ban are directly connected?
Also, whether or not you characterise it as a threat (I think it's unsavoury and emotive and violent rhetoric, but not really a threat as such unless you specifically plan to go to Poland or something) - it doesn't automatically make them or someone a nazi.
It's true.
Just try having a discussion about Age or ID Verification or the Brave Browser and see how quickly you get dogpiled and downvoted to hell if what you think isn't the accepted orthodoxy.
If your opinion is that Age verification is a good thing or the Brave Browser isn't a product of a company which has a right-wing homophobe as CEO then your opinion is colliding with hard facts.
Age Verification is simply deanonymization of the internet through the backdoor, raising a lot of privacy and cybersecurity questions. Paradoxically, it creates security risks for the children "being protected".
Brendan Eich is NOT a good person. He is a verified homophobe , conspiracy theorist and his browser, even if it's currently a good deal for the end user, is under constant pressure from shareholders to produce more revenue. It is therefore prone to enshittification in the future. Also, even if the browser blocks third party trackers by default, should you opt in to Brave ads, there is local behavioral tracking and tokenized reporting going on , which enables indirect tracking.
You have your right to your opinion. You don't have the right to be shielded from criticism for your opinions, and it is the in the literal job description for a moderator to curb misinformation to ensure the health of a community.
Thank you for the reply. I hope you have a lovely Sunday.
Which of these best describes your opinion that the Anarchists disapprove of?:
Sexism,
Racism,
White Supremacy (or any ethnic-supremacy),
Homophobia (or any sexuality-phobia),
Fascism,
Genocide,
Drug-phobia,
Ethnic-, gender-, sexuality-, ableist-, etc., based slurs,
Oath-taking or pledge-taking.
Did you intentionally skip over the parts that you don't like in Anarchist thought?
Buffet Anarchists.
But even in this context, who were you degrading and why?
I haven’t degraded anyone. My focus is on the contradiction of using the language of liberation to justify the mechanics of control.
Lemmy has a lot of performative anarchy: putting on the badass sunglasses of a rebel only to act as a gatekeeper for a specific set of permitted thoughts. When someone claims to be an anarchist but their first instinct is to use centralized power to silence anyone who doesn't follow an ideological script, they haven't abolished authority, they've just claimed it for themselves.
True anarchy requires individual responsibility. It’s about the capacity for adults to navigate discourse through their own discernment, critical thinking and voluntary association rather than needing someone to pre-filter their reality. If a community can only exist by forcibly removing any voice that challenges the status quo, it isn't a functional anarchist space; it’s just a digital walled garden with a cool flag.
thank you. That goes for all the lefty subs. I'm deeply involved with the leftist movement in my country, on a direct political level (I was an elected official two terms back, and am running again this cycle), and the amount of narcissistic performative ego-bullshit and echo chamber group think on here is jarring to me. Free speech and free thought and discussion and exploration of ideas and back and forth is NOT allowed here, it's pure emotional outrage gatekeeping and censorship, and if you don't stay in line you will be mobbed and reported over instances to have you silenced. I feel sometimes like online leftist space is like MAGA only with different talking points.
That's not anarchy, that's being an asshole. You are generalizing an entire group based on the actions of one person.
Calling names doesn't change the structural reality I'm pointing out: that there are a lot of people using 'anarchy' as a mask for top-down, centralized authority.
I'm not attacking anarchism. I AM an anarchist who is tired of seeing it appropriated by authoritarians.
Then I think instead of saying "This type of people do this bad thing", maybe phrase it as "doing this goes against the values of the people you claim to be a part of".
They did. Why are you tone policing? You're doing exactly what they're saying is bad...
Lol I literally tagged you as a user who generalizes groups of people unfairly.
"WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES"
The only time people complain about rules is when they have broken them or intend to break them.
They seem upset for not being able to harass people for some reason, I'm just curious which form of harassment they feel is justified.
Incorrect. There have been plenty of cases where an observer criticizes existing rules and their application due to inherent bias rather than an unfavorable interaction.
People who see wrongdoing and act to stop them without personal gain do exist.
You're right. I suppose I should have said, you don't complain about rules that you agree with. But generally, when someone's on here complaining about being silenced and specifically quotes "People should not be harassed for these reasons:" I'd bet it was because they harassed somebody for one of those reasons and they feel that they should be able to do that.
You're doing so much projection here it's genuinely sad.
This is such a fascist take.
"If you speak out against the party then you are an enemy of the people"
"If you do not subjugate under Sharia then you are an infidel"
That's not at all what I am saying. I think you may have become the thing you are raging against.
The lack of self insight is just astounding. This is literally what this post is about. Your black and white thinking and talking points mirrors that of MAGA. You just randomly happened to choose another set of beliefs, but you are every single bit as dogmatic and clueless.
Your logic relies on a cherrypicked take of the anarchist code of conduct to manufacture a smear. You selectively cited the list of prohibited behaviors while deliberately ignoring the sections that protect rational discourse. By removing that context, you’ve created a false binary: either one submits to YOUR specific method of centralized policing, or they are a bigot who wants to harass marginalized groups. Which is exactly the kind of behavior I'm criticizing. Waving the anarchist flag because of the good parts (anti-bigotry) while ignoring the difficult parts (personal responsibility, critical thinking).
"The only people worried about privacy are those with something to hide."
I just copied from the link you shared. 🤷🏻♂️
"If you are not as extreme in your views against these things as I am, then that means you are in favor of those things and will be banned"
Oh. That's not anarchy, that's somebody being an asshole.
That is literally most of the left wing lgtbq subs here. If you imply any sort of nuance you are banned from /r/pyongyang.
It's very much /r/conservative for the left.
Critical Thinking.
( & your selective-framing which leaves-out the actual-problem, can go eat rocks )
Archy is the hierarchy that civilization uses as its skeleton & nervous-system.
Hierarchy was the original, & the Hierarch was the original top-person.
Got a brain in your body??
THAT is archy.
The people who pretend that no-archy is the ideal, ignore the blunt fact that within their own bodies, they eradicate anarchy, allowing ONLY archy to operate, because it is orders-of-magnitude more effective & viable & healthy.
& they pretend that anarchy ought rule the world.
Parent-child relationship: ought that be archy, or no-archy?? Toddler wants to take the car for a spin, & parent-boss won't allow that?? Archy.
Ought aviation be unregulated, in anarchy, or regulated, in archy?
How about licensed surgeons? No-archy/no-regulation, XOR archy/regulations?
How about manufacturing? No-regs/no-archy? or regs/archy?
The ideological won't-know/intentional-ignorance in both right & left is stunning.
And some of us are sick of all of it.
Yoga, not communist-party-imperialism, not no-archy-fuzzbrainedness-which-ignores-how-even-our-bodies-work, & not personal-imperialism/fascism, but yoga, the harnessing & binding in efficient & effective coherent-directional-harmony, is the right way.
( :
_ /\ _
lol
If you're losing the battle of wisdom against a toddler, perhaps there is a reason to listen to that toddler...
You seem to not understand how anarchy works. It is not, "no rules and everyone is equal amd does what they want". It's, "nobody is given de facto authority over others with which they can cudgel their compatriots". Not having de facto, unquestionable authority is a long ways away from, "there are no rules for society".
Archy means hierarchy.
AnArchy means no-archy/nohierarchy.
It is shameful that I didn't clue-in that anarchist-sects each have their-own unquestionable-definition for "anarchy".
The ones who hold that anarchy means they have the right to butcher others, the ones who hold that anarchy means no-hierarchy-socialist-consensus-archy, the ones who mean libertarian-independence-and-no-coherent-action, etc.
It's sickening.
YOU hold-to A definition of anarchy.
YOU hold that nobody is allowed to have contradictory-definition of anarchy.
YOU are boss of that-meaning, then..
Good for you.
The "anarchy means there is no boss, no bossed" sect ignores that the parent-child relationship is that.
Good for them.
I'm fed-up-with being gaslit by ideologues, both left & right.
As vertebrates prove, hierarchy allows complex-organism to be more effective than non-hierarchical-organism ( sea-sponges have 2 types of cells: interior & surface, so they're the least-complex multicellular organisms I know-of ).
As complex-civilizations also prove, hierarchy is prerequisite to effectiveness.
That doesn't mean class-based-validity, it does mean that decomposition-of-problems/obstacles/work into smaller problems, done by smaller-teams, etc, is intrinsically required for civilization-effectveiness.
Having more-experience be in charge of less-experience is anti-anarchy, isn't it?
Having greater-responsibility in charge of less-responsible-ones is anti-anarchy, isn't it?
Having the most-domain-competent people in charge of things is anti-anarchy, isn't it?
It's making hierarchy arbitrary in the eyes of all who reject that domain-experience means anything, isn't it?
IF common-goals cannot be found, THEN congruent-action cannot be/result.
IF common-values cannot be found, THEN harmonious-operations aren't going to result.
Etc.
Nick Yee discovered that there is a category of people who enjoy breaking social-worth, because that is the buzz/pleasure they're wired for.
I expect "griefers" are in that category.
& rigging society so that nobody would have any authority to stop such abuse, unless perhaps some event-consensus were to happen..
but then you've got a "consensus-group" ruling over the griefer, arbitrarily, haven't you?
What happens when the majority are the abusers, & the minority the abused?
I've read that in a traditional American Indian community-justice-circle, if the majority decide with the abuser..
the only choice left is to leave the resrvation: there's no appeal-system, once it's decided: you've lost.
< shrug >
Whatever..
Just downvote everything I say, anywhere: I'm not going to begin pretending that YOUR magical-definition of anarchy is identical with the other magical-definitions of anarchy that people put in my face..
& therefore, I ought not be allowed, by ANY anarchy, to be affecting, or harming, your-ideology's world.
Make your-world happen.
_ /\ _
Nowhere did I say people should have the right to "butcher" others.
No, experienced people having authority over inexperienced is not anti-anarchy, unless they always hold authority even in the face of a good idea.
Of course consensus is important in ANY socially-bound system, and the indians were correct. When the majority decide to be fucking morons, it's time to go. Or worst case, take a nice trek deep into the Paradox of Tolerance and kill the belligerent ring leaders.
Yes, there always has to be some hierarchy... the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of "anarchy" is that authority has to be JUSTIFIED, preferably at all times. Only stupid children think anarchy literally means zero authority.
You're only being gaslit successfully because you're clearly too stupid to pull the obvious axioms out of such an ideology...