Hey all, I recently left reddit like many of you. I have a question regarding lemmy and the fediverse on the history of banning and defederation. I have noticed several posts calling for varying communities to be disconnected. were these removal requests as prevalent before the mass migration? Usually I am all for communities existsting in their own spaces, barring illegal content. I am hoping that the new users are coming here with the intent to learn how this community works, before we try to remake the community we just left.
Seems to be popular to defederate from right-leaning instances. The Fediverse basically started as a far-left stronghold, so it isn’t surprising.
Most instances also defederated from lemmygrad (commies) so its not generally politically left either.
Also there is the problem of liability, if a instance hosts stuff that is legal where their server stands, but isn’t where yours is, you basically need to do it. (Burggit.moe for example, also LemmyNSFW)
Porn in general is also defederated by many because its problematic to moderate.
And then there are instances that just brigade a lot or make bots on mass that spam. They usually get blocked as well.
Last but not least, if your instance defederated nothing it will be defederated because its seen as unmoderated (wich could potentially result in illegal activities)
Tankies, not just commies
Mostly the same for me tbh, the Intersection is about 90% nowadays, especially on the internet.
Are they trots or stalinists or maoists i keep reading all 3 used interchangeably.
Most instances also defederated from lemmygrad (commies) so its not generally politically left either.IMO, Stalinists aren’t exactly tolerant either. You’re still talking about a totalitarian and authoritarian viewpoint, even if they’re on the left on economic matters.
IMO, if your point is to make a community welcoming, then you have to get rid of intolerant voices. That–broadly speaking–means that you have to remove people advocating for any kind of absolutist, authoritarian rules. It’s easy to see at a macro level, but it’s all fuzzy at a micro level.
A lot of people in the Fediverse don’t seem to appreciate the concept that the political left is just as capable of intolerance and extremism as the political right.
Anyone that is familiar with the ways that communism has existed in Warsaw-pact countries, in China, in southeast Asia in general, etc., should be able to see that. LGBTQ+ people were, if anything, even more fucked in most communist countries. There certainly wasn’t any meaningful religious tolerance, since religion was banned in at least some communist countries (or wholly controlled by the gov’t).
I’m in favor of communism in principle, but not in practice. I’d love to live in a commune, but I don’t think I’d want to live in a communist country.
You might be interested in anarcho-communism. I’m not one myself, but they’re the only kind of communists that I’m okay with.
It’s true that self-proclaimed communist states have been awful in this regard. You’re not wrong.
It becomes a question of semantics, ultimately. If I go on I’ll just fall into the “no true Scotsman” line of reasoning. “If by ‘whiskey’…”
Glad we’re ultimately on the side of supporting gay rights & black lives, whether or not that’s called right, left, red flag, blue state…
🤷🏻♀️
The shift of the political battle from workers-vs-owners to populists-vs-pluralists has been driven by the far right and has been an explicit goal of the right since 1922.
The populist ideology uses intolerance and bigotry as a tool. Hate on a group to get the workers to vote for the rich-get-richer economics the right wing favors.
Ideally a group they can describe as disgustingly weak in one breath and a dangerous threat the next.
So it’s de jure the case that the left a.k.a. pluralists oppose intolerance and bigotry. That’s what makes us the left.
Many on the left don’t actually understand pluralism, though. It has become pretty mainstream to shut down voices one disagrees with.
If by pluralism you mean competing viewpoints in political systems, then the ability to shut them down means that those voices have failed to successfully compete. That’s like saying “No one wants to work anymore!” when you don’t want to pay workers the prevailing wage, and then crying because your business fails.
deleted by creator
I’m not talking about parties, I’m talking about the political spectrum. There is no “Right-Wing Party”, nor is there a “Left-Wing Party”. Conservatives and liberals can be found in both of the actual dominant American parties.
deleted by creator
Haha another unfriendly troll rears its ugly head. Goodbye.
.
deleted by creator
Faschism and Stalinism is just different in who they want to dispose of mostly. The Intersection of their policies is gigantic.
This seems like it’s subtly framing the issue as left-leaning individuals just arbitrarily hating/suppressing right-leaning individuals/views simply because they are different. Me left-leaning. Right leaning different. Rahh, different bad! Me oppose/censor right-leaning stuff!
Left-wing people don’t just hate right-wing stuff just because it’s different though. “Liberal” ideas are generally about being tolerant/permissive. If someone claims to identify as an attack helicopter and says their pronouns are copterself/whupwhupwhup maybe it’s silly to indulge that but it’s not hateful/harmful/bigoted to do so. If someone is sexually attracted to the same sex, again it’s not going to fall into the category of bigotry/hate to be respectful/tolerant/permissive toward that, while on the other hand “HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION UNTO THE LAWD!” is in fact hateful and bigoted.
My point is it’s not just one side being against the other because it’s different, there’s a fundamental asymmetry involved and unfortunately right-wing stuff is much more likely to end up on the hateful/bigoted/bullying/hurting others side of the spectrum. Additionally, in my opinion “conservatism” - trying to preserve the status quo - is really just an indirect way of saying “appeal to tradition fallacy”. Basing your behavior/ideals on a fallacy based on preserving the status quo is naturally going to end up on the wrong side of progress… well, by definition just about every single time! You can easily look to history to verify this and every social change that people (in western societies anyway) generally accept as a no brainer (letting women vote, abolishing slavery, etc) was opposed by conservatives.