A story as old as federated social media, in 3 parts

Mod of !anarchism@slrpnk.net posts a great Greta Thunberg quote, but then tries to use it to justify not voting in the upcoming US election
Multiple people point out that’s very clearly not what she meant
Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod

Using your mod powers to decide who is allowed and not allowed to speak is not very anarchist of you, @mambabasa@slrpnk.net

You're viewing a single thread.

213 comments

Going on an anarchist community to spew anti-anarchism is a bannable offence. Pound sand asshole.And then going on an anarchist Lemmy instance to complain, classic.
- Sir/Madam, you started a conversation quite−closely-linked to the election in an anarchist community in the first place. Saying "it's much better to vote for this candidate instead" is not the same as supporting the election; I don't see why lesser-evilism is bannable at all. I'm a beginner anarchist myself and there's nothing I found about working on other things/lesser evils when certain things aren't feasible.
  
  Lesser evilism is bannable because it's still supporting evil. If you support the lesser evil, you're supposed to be ashamed at your choice, not provide ideological cover for evil. Choosing to provide ideological cover for evil is a bannable offence.
  
  In my country's present institution, you have to either support evil or be filthy rich to live. Revolutions don't happen spontaneously; they build in the back corner while evil is prospering before a great ambush. As a non-white anarchist, Trump will quite possibly kill our movement if he wins. Thus, I unfortunately indulge in activities that will help us in the long run. In the dark, we help build strength. In the light, you'll help arrest the momentum.
  
  But do you have to justify evil? Do you have to defend evil? To justify and defend is a different choice than choosing to shitty option.
  
  I'm confused. Do you now think choosing the shitty option is justifiable or not?
  
  It's an understandable choice. It's a choice stemming from lack of agency and power. Choosing to defend the lesser evil and justify the evil is a different. It is a more powerful, wholly conscious choice. THAT is itself evil. You should be unhappy and outraged that you have both choice but to choose evil, to choose genocide. Yet these people, they are not. Rather, they want to wholly support the program of Harris, wilfully ignoring or downplaying that this program is evil and genocidal. That is providing ideological cover for genocide, and that is never justified.
  
  I don't think you really are willing to understand that most people are viewing that election as a hostage situation. I'm Canadian. It's plain as day. Forced participation is not consent, and you should know that!
  
  You're correct! But defending Harris and her program is a different choice. You can vote, but you don't need to CHOOSE to defend Harris, you don't need to CHOOSE to defend her program, you don't need to CHOOSE to provide ideological cover for genocide. Vote if you want, but defending Harris is a different choice from voting. And doing this in an anarchist space? Why in our space? Can't you do that in the hundreds of other Lemmy communities? Don't use our space to soapbox. Do the ideological cover for genocide elsewhere, thank you very much.
  
  I did not do that. I said this:
  You do know that Trump is a racist idiot, and will likely do things or neglect to do things, and that will result in higher civilian casualties everywhere? Dude handled COVID in a way that increased deaths. You think an armed conflict will be handled better? You have a choice between two things. Abstaining just favors one thing.
  IDGAF about Harris. Abstaining favors the choice that represents an existential threat for MORE people. Recommending martyrdom instead of reducing losses makes you a saboteur for anarchism. Stop it. Accept that people have a risk profile that won't tolerate uncompromising principles. We need people to participate, rejecting moderate allies is a bad choice.
  
  I have never argued for abstention. Stop putting words in my mouth. And do you honestly think, I, a non-American in not-America, can affect the most influential election in the world? Get over yourself. I know people aren't listening to me. But anarchists must say what only anarchists can say.
  
  Isn't "we lack agency" the exact argument you removed? Casting others in either black or white is unnecessarily flaming and often used by power-grabbers to divide the electorate and drum up perfervid support. Nobody's wholly supporting Harris or supporting her stance on the war here. I saw the thread before it was removed.
  
  Something Awful forums apparently have some sort of sitewide account ban for strawmanning, saying that someone said something which clearly isn't what they said, so you can get upset at them about the thing they didn't say. The longer I stay on Lemmy, the more I think that kind of rule is a great idea.
  
  That sounds a bit too extreme if it's a one-strike
  
  I'm not sure if it's a permaban. Apparently their system is that accounts cost $10 for the lifetime of the account, but you can't get out of line in certain ways, strawmanning being one of them, or you might get a temp ban or lose your account entirely and have to pay another $10.
  I don't know that much about it but I think it sounds great. I don't know how you could ever bring that energy to Lemmy, but it sounds a lot better than the "let's invite all the mysterious new accounts with strong opinions about the Democrats to come and play as hard as they want, oh also we ban because today you disagreed with a mod" philosophy.
  
  No it wasn't. They were justifying and defending Harris and defending voting for Harris. Anti-anarchists don't get to use anarchist spaces to push anti-anarchist talking points. They have literally almost every other Lemmy instance to push their voting agenda, why should they use ours?
  
  How were they justifying Harris's genocide policies? Isn't defending voting for Harris defending the shitty choice?
  
  Defending the shitty choice is defending the program of your vote. You can vote for the lesser evil, but do you need to defend the evil? Do you need to justify the evil? No. Just vote. You don't need to defend or justify evil.
- I think it would be fun if this community had a rule that if the mod comes to the comments to double down, they are banned and their comment is deleted.
  I don't think such a rule is necessary. I think the whole conversation we had without you played out fine, and your opinion was already obvious without you needing to weigh in again and start cursing at me. But that rule would be fun.
  
  Providing ideological cover for genocide and promoting anti-anarchism is worth more than what you got, which is just a slap on the wrist. But please, tell me why anarchists should tolerate anti-anarchism, liberalism, and ideological cover for genocide in their space. I'm sure it's enlightening.
  
  Providing ideological cover for genocide and promoting anti-anarchism is worth more than what you got, which is just a slap on the wrist.
  Sorry, what did you say? Can you tell me about what type of punishment I should receive?
  But please, tell me why anarchists should tolerate anti-anarchism, liberalism, and ideological cover for genocide in their space. I’m sure it’s enlightening.
  Because talking with people who don't agree with you is a valuable thing to do.
  If I'm wrong, and you take some time to talk with me, maybe I'll absorb what you are saying, and take it on as a good idea. Probably not the first time, but it does happen over time. It's good to be able to talk with other humans. If as soon as I'm wrong, you ban me, then I'll never have that opportunity, and I'll just go on being wrong and getting banned from places, indefinitely.
  If you're wrong, or what you're saying is applicable sometimes but it's not a good idea in some other situations, letting me say what I've got to say might show you a new perspective. Or, even if you're completely set in your way, it's still valuable for the people watching the conversation to be able to see both sides expressed, and decide for themselves.
  I think it's universally agreed that the places on Reddit and Lemmy that aggressively remove "the wrong viewpoint" are laughingstocks. A lot of the time, they're doing that because they don't have a good answer for questions people are asking or points they're making. You've chosen to make !anarchism@slrpnk.net into one of them, in this one particular instance. Well done.
  You've asked over and over why I am supporting genocide. I explained over and over that what I'm saying is an attempt to prevent genocide, and calmly explained how. That pattern eventually starts to sink in, for people watching the conversation, even if it never does for you, and impacts what they take away from the conversation. I think it would be better for you to reassess your way of approaching conversation with people who don't agree with you, but you do you.
  See how good this is? We don't agree on things, and we're talking to each other. It's normal, it's healthy. Like I said, if you're insistent on making "your" community into one where that can't happen, that's on you, but I think it's a bad idea.
  
  Anarchism doesn't mean free speech for anti-anarchists. Simple as. We welcome debate and dissent in our ranks, but don't lay down welcome mats for those who hate us and our program. Please tell me why you should feel entitled to soapbox in our space when literally almost every other Lemmy is devoted to the Harris cause? Soapbox somewhere else. I was just taking out the trash.
  
  Power tripping modsism doesn't mean free speech for power tripping mods. We welcome debate and dissent in our ranks, but don't lay down welcome mats for those- You know what? My heart's just not in it. I just don't care.
  I never defended Kamala Harris, I just agreed with Greta Thunberg that Trump is so bad that it's an emergency. You were the one that brought the election and talking about the Democrats into an anarchist space, and then threw a fit when someone continued the conversation you started about the election, and quoted your Greta Thunberg post back at you. I clearly don't hate anarchists, I read some of them after talking to people in this non-censored thread, and I had some thoughts but overall I think it's gold. A good way of enabling an anarchist lifestyle sounds really good to me.
  You are the one soapboxing in the anarchist space about the election. You are the one who's been talking nonstop about Kamala Harris and the election for highly suspicious reasons.
  I think I've said as much on this now as I want to say. I think all you've done by coming and doubling down so hard is to convince people a little more firmly of what the consensus already was before you stopped by.
  
  Why are you so entitled to soapbox your anti-anarchism, liberalism, electoralism, and ideological cover for genocide in our space when you can shit the floor in literally almost every other Lemmy? Go to those other communities; they'll welcome you. No, you're not entitled to it. Go pound sand.
  
  Hey, what punishment do you think I should have received instead of the slap on the wrist?
  Did you ask Kropotkin about it? I feel like he might have had some kind of punishment schedule laid out for what to do when people do things that might harm the movement, but you seem better-educated on all this than I am, so you would know better. Tell me.
  
  This thread is something
  
  I can't stop. It's like a loose tooth. I'm sorry for what I've done, but I'm in too deep now.
  
  I am curious, still. What punishment should I have received beyond the slap on the wrist?

213 comments