Skip Navigation
263 comments

  • Here at exploding heads we allow anyone to say and post pretty much anything.

    Yeah, that's just code for "nazis welcome". They'll tell you that anybody is welcome, but you just have to ask yourself who would not be welcome anywhere to see who such communities are built for.

    • And then it's usually the most low-IQ people you've ever seen. So even if you are a person with controversial opinions and would like to discuss them, you can't even do that properly.

      E.g. imagine that you like cryptocoins, but see some kind of problem with them that you would like to argue about... Everything you get is an angry Mob with nonsense responses.

      • E.g. imagine that you like cryptocoins, but see some kind of problem with them that you would like to argue about… Everything you get is an angry Mob with nonsense responses.

        Any reason why you can't discuss crypto with people that aren't fascist symps?

    • Dang it's like Voat over there

  • Nazis aren't welcome here, best they learn that now rather than through a long process of being told by everyone else here to fuck off.

    • Telling Nazis to fuck off rarely leads to them actually fucking off, because they're Nazis.

      • If enough of the community makes it sufficiently clear that we're not going to let them peddle their Nazi bullshit unopposed, including by taking whatever moderator actions are possible to get rid of them, most of the Nazis will go somewhere else and we'll only have to deal with the typical number of Nazis for an internet platform rather than become inundated with them. Making them unwelcome by any means necessary is the name of the game.

      • then we will scrape them off our shoe as we always do with dog shit

      • If enough of the community makes it sufficiently clear that we're not going to let them peddle their Nazi bullshit unopposed, including by taking whatever moderator actions are possible to get rid of them, most of the Nazis will go somewhere else and we'll only have to deal with the typical number of Nazis for an internet platform rather than become inundated with them. Making them unwelcome by any means necessary is the name of the game.

      • I like how you make it sound like they're a type of vermin.

    • What's your definition of a Nazi? A member of a national socialist party? I want to understand what is being banned before it's banned.

      • My criteria for what makes "a Nazi" are something like this.

        1. A belief that race is an immutable genetic concept, that reproducing outside one's race is inherently wrong, and that some races are inherently superior to others; most often the superior groups are "white", while the "inferior" groups include Africans, Jews and travelling people
        2. Reverence for cultural "tradition", real or imagined, with any departure from these traditions classified as "degenerate" and dangerous to society. For example, a belief that avant-garde art is immoral and without value because it doesn't root itself in what are popularly perceived to be the artistic traditions of "the west", a neat line from Greek marble statues to Wagner.
        3. Hatred of diversity, seeing it as a plague that rots a society. For example, the belief that women are unfit to hold a social position outside of motherhood, that non-heterosexual sexualities are "degenerate", that allowing people from another race to exist in your race's society inevitably leads to that society's destruction, that gender as a concept is a "mental illness" because only two biological sexes exist and each biological sex has a set-in-stone role demanding a certain presentation and certain values, that societies which follow one religion must not allow followers of another religion to exist within it.
        4. Heavy use of absolutism. Everything is either wholly good or wholly bad. Nothing can be a mix of good and bad, or neutral. And everything is a matter of utmost urgency. Anything that is "bad" is an existential threat to all that is "good" and must be immediately and utterly annihilated.
        5. An authoritarian outlook. Anything opposed by a Nazi must be forbidden by the full force of the law. There is no space for differences of opinion, or a nuanced debate, or reviewing the facts. If they oppose something, whether it's big or small - the use of marijuana, reformative justice programs, abortion, media with female protagonists - it must be banned under pain of death.
        6. Violence. To a Nazi, the use of violence isn't an escalation, but the norm. They have no qualms about beating people to death simply for espousing an opposing view, or even just for existing if some aspect of their existence offends their beliefs. Likewise, their rhetoric often alludes to the indiscriminate or nonchalant, even gleeful use of deadly force - "physical removal", "showers", etc.
        7. Shameless hypocrisy. The people who say "facts not feelings" as a rebuttal are often the same people whose beliefs are motivated almost entirely by feelings, and will happily mock others for trying to use evidence in their arguments instead of simply saying "it's common sense". They will shame someone for being rude and aggressive while also calling them the N word and telling them that on "the day of the rope", they'll be among the dead.
        8. Veneration of strong leaders and mocking of "weakness". Consensus-builders are seen as spineless "cucks", while people who enforce their every arbitrary whim with total force are held up as "based" exemplars of good leadership and models to be emulated. People who are comfortably being themselves in ways that aren't conventionally masculine are addressed with slurs and told to kill themselves while ignorant, bullying asshats are applauded for "rustling jimmies".

        You can meet all of these criteria without being a member of a National-Socialist party, or even identifying as a Nazi, but if you do meet most or all of them, your ideology can be pretty confidently described as Nazi-like.

      • My criteria for what makes "a Nazi" are something like this.

        1. A belief that race is an immutable genetic concept, that reproducing outside one's race is inherently wrong, and that some races are inherently superior to others; most often the superior groups are "white", while the "inferior" groups include Africans, Jews and travelling people
        2. Reverence for cultural "tradition", real or imagined, with any departure from these traditions classified as "degenerate" and dangerous to society. For example, a belief that avant-garde art is immoral and without value because it doesn't root itself in what are popularly perceived to be the artistic traditions of "the west", a neat line from Greek marble statues to Wagner.
        3. Hatred of diversity, seeing it as a plague that rots a society. For example, the belief that women are unfit to hold a social position outside of motherhood, that non-heterosexual sexualities are "degenerate", that allowing people from another race to exist in your race's society inevitably leads to that society's destruction, that gender as a concept is a "mental illness" because only two biological sexes exist and each biological sex has a set-in-stone role demanding a certain presentation and certain values, that societies which follow one religion must not allow followers of another religion to exist within it.
        4. Heavy use of absolutism. Everything is either wholly good or wholly bad. Nothing can be a mix of good and bad, or neutral. And everything is a matter of utmost urgency. Anything that is "bad" is an existential threat to all that is "good" and must be immediately and utterly annihilated.
        5. An authoritarian outlook. Anything opposed by a Nazi must be forbidden by the full force of the law. There is no space for differences of opinion, or a nuanced debate, or reviewing the facts. If they oppose something, whether it's big or small - the use of marijuana, reformative justice programs, abortion, media with female protagonists - it must be banned under pain of death.
        6. Violence. To a Nazi, the use of violence isn't an escalation, but the norm. They have no qualms about beating people to death simply for espousing an opposing view, or even just for existing if some aspect of their existence offends their beliefs. Likewise, their rhetoric often alludes to the indiscriminate or nonchalant, even gleeful use of deadly force - "physical removal", "showers", etc.
        7. Shameless hypocrisy. The people who say "facts not feelings" as a rebuttal are often the same people whose beliefs are motivated almost entirely by feelings, and will happily mock others for trying to use evidence in their arguments instead of simply saying "it's common sense". They will shame someone for being rude and aggressive while also calling them the N word and telling them that on "the day of the rope", they'll be among the dead.
        8. Veneration of strong leaders and mocking of "weakness". Consensus-builders are seen as spineless "cucks", while people who enforce their every arbitrary whim with total force are held up as "based" exemplars of good leadership and models to be emulated. People who are comfortably being themselves in ways that aren't conventionally masculine are addressed with slurs and told to kill themselves while ignorant, bullying asshats are applauded for "rustling jimmies".

        You can all of these criteria without being a member of a National-Socialist party, or even identifying as a Nazi, but if you do meet most or all of them, your ideology can be pretty confidently described as Nazi-like.

    • Nazis

      Let me guess. Trump and people who like him are Nazis to you?

  • I am trying to examen the instance, it would have been helpful to have some pointers to speed up the process although it somehow sounds like a familiar domain. It sounds like such content at least was against their rules. but that of course does not have to mean much.

    Looking at the comments from their team is no good impression to say the least hmm

    Update: found some more potential evidence that they are not welcoming nazis, but i think there are quite a few misinformation and "the usual" shitpost things on there that are not very ... enjoyable (and of course as the op implies, transphobic trash and such as to expect from a shitpost instance).

    • There is the Lemmy.world Admin Response to Defederation from Exploding Heads with some pointers.

    • casually scrolling through their local top posts tells me they pass the duck test on being toxic pieces of shit, so I say let them fester in it by themselves

    • I will be ok with whatever you choose, whether that is staying federated, starting a conversation with their admins and withholding judgement until after that, defederating, or something else.

      Personally, I'm not a fan of those things you have found (transphobia, misinfo, etc.), but I understand that people like that exist. I at least can block them and the communities that spout that trash.

      It's your instance, your hardware, and I trust your judgement.

  • Lmao, their rules:

    • Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
    • No threats or personal insults
    • No discrimination

    and yet almost every single comment I read is calling everyone pussies, toxic, and racist words.

    Whats the point in having those rules when literally NO ONE is following or enforcing them? Damn.

  • Looks like this is really a right wing/fake/hate news instance. No love is lost defederating them.

    So: Yes, please!

  • I'm all for having arguments with reasonable people I disagree with, but let's be real here. That's not what happens with far right trolls. Their goal is to be incoherent and exhausting to deal with. They don't care about exchanging ideas. They want to make you waste your time and feel hopeless. Don't give them the chance. Just defederate.

  • I'm on kbin, so this isn't even my instance, but I really don't want to be part of an intolerant echo chamber of "good" people incapable of blocking magazines they don't like and instead trying to control what other people say and hear. No thanks to that.

    • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxoftolerance

      Read up. Then punch a nazi. Don't need that shit anywhere in society.

      • Slight tangent: It's been a recurring post on tumblr and mastodon that the Paradox of Tolerance is resolved when you consider tolerance to be a social contract rather than a moral standard. In that case, if someone does not uphold their end of the contract than the contract doesn't apply to them.

        If you do not tolerate me, I do not have to tolerate you.

        As Nazism is based on intolerance of other views, there is no requirement for tolerating Naziism.

        The same applies to terfism. "Trans-EXCLUSIONARY radical feminism" is the acronym, it is a philosophy based on not tolerating trans people, and therefore there is no need to tolerate them.

        Contrast to say, furries, who are weird but who are defined by their enthusiasm for something rather than an exclusion of other interests. Furries, as a group are covered under the tolerance social contract.

      • While it's crucial to oppose harmful ideologies like Nazism, we must be wary of how we define such harmful groups. If we broaden these definitions arbitrarily, we risk encapsulating people who merely differ politically, diluting the term's significance and unjustifiably alienating individuals. In doing so, we inadvertently shrink our own communities, polarizing society to the extent where a moderate viewpoint might be mistaken for extremism. Right-leaning communities fall into this trap as well, resulting in fragmented realities where each group exists in its own echo chamber. This division deepens societal fissures and undermines moderate views, which, in my belief, are grounded in reality and thus instrumental in achieving balanced discourse.

      • They really should make an exception to the law for punching Nazis

      • I really wish it was socially acceptable to punch a Nazi. Cops don't like that, so I don't do it.

    • The issue with some instances is that most if not all communites / magazines are awful.

      The best solution would be if Lemmy would let Users block whole instances, and Server Admins could create a default block list that users can still edit for themselves. And Community Admins should be able to block members from certain instances from participating.

    • A lot of free speech arguments falter in situations like these, imo, since they are predicated on the speech involved being genuine feelings/ideas/emotions. Troll groups like explodingheads and /r/thedonald are/were less about exchanging ideas and more about inflicting ideas on others. When thedonald was isolated, their community essentially started to die because there wasn't much genuine interest in discussing politics - their only interest was in 'redpilling normies'.

    • Some people, like Elon Musk, want us to believe that social networks are a "digital town square", but imo that's a pretty poor metaphor. Social networks are more similar to "digital pubs". They are places where you go to meet, chat and share with your people. Of course it is a public place, and anyone can listen to your conversations, and in principle, even join. But social networks, as pubs, and as any other human interaction, are governed by (mostly unwritten) social contracts, codes of conduct and etiquette. You are not supposed to join a conversation uninvited, and if you are invited, you are supposed to treat the others with respect.

      However, these groups systematically and purposely violate the social contracts, they hijack spaces and conversation where they were not invited and insult, harass and harm anyone who doesn't think like them or simply if they find it funny. They are the drunkards that instigate bar fights. And as in real life, the owners don't want disruptive elements in their pubs.

      At this point, the Internet is 40 years old, and mass-adoption happened more than 20 years ago. Most of us have been part of many communities before lemmy and/or kbin. And the disruptive elements are always the same. There are many groups of people with different opinions on religion, social issues, economical policies, etc, and yet only the far-right insists on the on-line persecution of their opponents. And their strategy works as long as the apologist support them.

      This isn't a matter of echo chambers. You can hear many different voices on lemmy/kbin. The only requirement to have you voice heard is basic respect, and that is something that the far-right refuses to do.

    • Then move to another instance. That's the beauty of the fediverse. I left that bullshit behind on Reddit, I'll be damned if it follows me out here.

    • You know kbin is a communist project named after the ak47, right?

263 comments