Not really “powertripping”. Just pathetic. Consider this a notice to avoid feddit.org… I’ve unsubbed and blocked the instance.

We can’t dehumanize fascists for their choice to dehumanize everyone for things outside their control though, because that would be mean, and hurt their sociopath feefees!

Europe stool idly by throughout the 1930’s “tolerating” fascism, and the Nazi’s killed over 100 million people. Don’t make the same mistake as the radical centrists of history. Fascists will not afford you the same tolerance or courtesy.

  • SkilurosEnglish
    6410·
    4 days ago

    This seems like a 50:50 type scenario. I personally wouldn’t bother with moderation unless someone complained, but a good faith arguement can be made that you were breaking the rules.

    While the current US adminstration is arguably somewhere between proto-fascist and fully fascist (there is lots more room for democratic and human rights backsliding), I can see how dehumanisation can be seen as a legitimate moderation reason for your comments.

    • Don Antonio Magino@feddit.nl
      40·
      4 days ago

      They seem to only have a rule against dehumanisation of minorities, where the term is pretty clearly intended to mean minorities generally subject to persecution/bigotry:

      4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.

      I feel the ban is a bit over the top, anyway. I get the post being removed for being a bit too aggressive, but to immediately ban over (what I presume) is a first offence… I’d simply give a warning myself.

      • cows_are_underrated@feddit.org
        3·
        2 days ago

        Another rule is that all contents have to follow German, Austrian and Switzerland’s laws. Under German law the comment that got deleted is incitement of people and therefore it was right to delete it.

      • SkilurosEnglish
        223·
        4 days ago

        Ban is definitely over the top.

        Sometimes less is more with respect to rhetoric (not saying there aren’t situations were you have to be clear and uncompromising in your statements).

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        2418·
        4 days ago

        Saying “nazi lives don’t matter” isn’t even “dehumanizing”.

        Dehumanization is Trump calling immigrants rapists and criminals, and associating them with insects, rodents, and pests.

        Dehumanization is banning every government department from acknowledging the existence of women, LGBTQ+, minorities, etc, and ordering them to erase any mention of their history.

        • friendlymessage@feddit.org
          112·
          3 days ago

          You’re not gonna see this as you blocked feddit.org, also geh dahin wo der Pfeffer wächst!

          For everyone else:

          Saying “nazi lives don’t matter” isn’t even “dehumanizing”.

          Doubtful from a legal point of view

          Dehumanization is Trump calling immigrants rapists and criminals, and associating them with insects, rodents, and pests.

          Dehumanization is banning every government department from acknowledging the existence of women, LGBTQ+, minorities, etc, and ordering them to erase any mention of their history.

          Basically everyone on feddit.org agrees with this, so this whole rambling doesn’t make any sense. Two things can be true at the same time.

          • FelixCress@lemmy.world
            26·
            3 days ago

            Doubtful from a legal point of view

            Can you quote the section of German law you based this assessment on?

            • needanke@feddit.org
              10·
              3 days ago

              https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__130.html

              (1) Anyone who, in a manner that is likely to disturb the public peace,

              1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious or ethnic group, against sections of the population or against an individual because of his or her membership of the aforementioned group or a section of the population, or incites violence or arbitrary measures, or
              2. attacks the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously denigrating or defaming a designated group, sections of the population or an individual because of their membership of a designated group or a section of the population,

              shall be liable to a custodial sentence of three months to five years.

              And according to https://kujus-strafverteidigung.de/strafrecht/volksverhetzung/ the protected groups include

              Gruppen mit einer bestimmten weltanschaulichen Überzeugung (Groups with a certain view or conviction)

              Which one could concievably put Nazis into (although their views are shit they’re still views)

              https://www.anwalt.org/volksverhetzung/#absatz-1-nr-1-stoerung-des-oeffentlichen-friedens-durch-aufruf-zu-hass-und-gewalt Further provides the following explanation for attacks against human dignity:

              Dem Täter kommt es aus verwerflichen Beweggründen darauf an, andere Menschen als besonders minderwertig, unwürdig und verachtenswert darzustellen. (For reprehensible motives, the perpetrator aims to portray other people as particularly inferior, unworthy and despicable.)

              I would think saying someones live does not matter constitutes them as unworthy (of life).

              • FelixCress@lemmy.world
                46·
                3 days ago

                Thank you, first answer with a merit. Although 1 definitely doesn’t apply. 2 you can argue about but I doubt it.

        • SkilurosEnglish
          161·
          4 days ago

          Agreed regarding Trump and dehumanization. I am Ukrainian, so you can imagine what I think of Trump, his goons and even those who support Trump (Americans or otherwise).

          I am almost arguing from a devil’s advocate point of view.

          To be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if the mods at a high level support your views (in a different more nuanced phrasing), but you do have to have a modicum of fairness when approaching a rule like “no dehumanization”. The style/tone of your comment did conflict with the rules, that’s all I am saying.

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      189·
      4 days ago

      No, you need to read about the paradox of tolerance.

      You have to shut down the Nazis before they shut you down.

      • JasSmith
        4·
        2 days ago

        You guys always stop halfway through Poppers writings of the Paradox.

        “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.”

        Popper never argued to strip people of the right to free speech. Even immoral free speech. He makes the line very clear: when people begin using fists and pistols. That is, tolerate up to the point of physical violence.

      • friendlymessage@feddit.org
        81·
        3 days ago

        I don’t think the paradox of tolerance works here. Popper argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. It doesn’t say kill them, it says don’t tolerate them. Meaning exclude these topics from public discourse or make basic right non-negotiable and unalterable. One of these basic rights being the right to life. Ironically, by calling into question such a basic right, you are actually the intolerant one Popper means.

        Of course, this only applies as long as we are still in a tolerant society. A better argument at the moment especially in the US would be the right to resist.

      • KombatWombat@lemmy.world
        145·
        4 days ago

        Yes, you shut them down. That doesn’t require you to dehumanize them. Someone inciting violence against a minority group for example would also be banned I’m sure. The paradox of tolerance is simply solved by limiting the freedom of the intolerant. There are plenty of ways to do that without pretending the offender isn’t human. Honestly, resorting to that line of thinking is very much what Nazis do.

        • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
          71·
          4 days ago

          There also is an argument in here for a false flag attack to paint leftists as terrorists or calling for violence. Feddit.org seems to be a German instance which means they have to adhere to German law which absolutely States that you can not dehumanize anyone, Nazi or not. It is article one, section one of the constitution. The platform would open itself up for straight deletion if they let that stand.

          Live to fight another day. But yes, in general I’m not opposed to eradicating Nazis where possible. One important distinction though: the real Nazis are a few. Those absolutely need to be shut down by any means necessary. They’re master manipulators and if you let them speak, you have lost. The others need to be educated. Education, broad and free, untainted by corpo shit is the ultimate weapon against these fucks.

      • SkilurosEnglish
        214·
        4 days ago

        Agreed. You do have to shut down nazis/tankies etc. Zero tolerance policy even.

        I am just saying look at it from the mods point of view, they do have to act upon their “no dehumanization” rule or they risk that rule not having any meaning.

        Consider a situation where some tankie is ranting about how Trump supporters are capitalist roachs and lack humanity. You don’t want that shit in any community.