Yesterday I blocked politics, worldnews, and similar. Feed was becoming nasty, depressing, everyone arguing, complaining, criticizing, trolls, strawmen. Literally people saying it all sucks, nothing matters, everybody’s a liar, there is no point, why bother…
Yeah but it’s not like I can fix any of them. I vote and occasionally donate to causes and hope that’s enough. Fuck, does it really matter if you’re informed when really there’s no direct impact you can have on the situation
The reality is, change comes through violence. There’s a reason the iconic image of the French revolution is a guillotine. So the main reason to stay engaged is so that when things start to get really bad, we are all on the same page about the problems. Also, simply being against the bad things your country does matter in a democracy. The legitimacy of the government hinges on them actually having the support of the public.
I always see people describe tankies as uncritical supporters of genocide and dictatorship, then see the same people give those definitions describe anyone left of Bernie as a tankie.
Really, it’s just a useless word in my opinion. I say that as a non-Marxist-Leninist, who disagrees with Vanguardism generally.
I’m about half way through this video, I’d never seen it before. I think she offers some decent rebuttal and fact checking. I didn’t understand, and her listeners didn’t understand why she would say the Marxist Leninists are basically liberals who are apologetic to horrors committed by the left (but that’s not true, Marxist Leninists are not liberals), then she said she was being sarcastic- if you are fact checking then your statements should be taken at face value. I think her frustration comes from the lack of criticism of all of the failures of communist regimes. The Deprogram podcast with Hakim has an episode about the failures of communist parties, and though they mentioned the restriction of religious freedom, they completely skipped over major atrocities like China’s Land Reform Movement. I couldn’t imagine a party leader who was less qualified or more destructive to their own people than Mao was, it’s amazing that China is where it is today with a terrible history like that. But yeah, I’ve been waiting for Hakim to voice concerns about past atrocities and I haven’t heard anything.
Yeah you’ve basically outed yourself as a hardcore fascist with that one. Keffals… are you fucking serious?!
For those of you who don’t know, they’re an open grifter who orbits vaush, an open pedophile and cryptofascist who sexually abuses animals. This is who you’re aligning with. Despicable this comment got 9 upvotes, you all should be ashamed of yourselves.
In a first-past-the-post election you should vote against the most dangerous candidate (such as the most fascist or autocratic candidate) by voting for the other major party (there will generally only be two.)
This will only slow the advance of plutocratic subterfuge, so you want to get involved with efforts that include election reform to something more democratic like ranked choice.
Curiosity took me so I checked it out. I just see petite adult women? Literally every single post has 18 USC 2257 compliant age verification in the main body and it’s listed as a rule on the sidebar that it must be included.
I’m all for a fuck literally any child fetishization. But they seem to be very clearly ensuring that there’s no children. you can’t seriously be saying that any adult female with a petite body should be seen as shameful and equated to a child?
I believe their problem is the fact the entire concept of the community is adults-who-could-be-mistaken-as-teens. That’s the idea I’m getting from the name. It’s fair for that to cross a line. I think its a super gross concept, and people are allowed to agree or disagree with that viewpoint.
Said women have every right to do whatever, including doing SW. This is not an individual problem.
The problematic part is people actively searching out and forming communities around pron with women looking as close to a kid as possible. Condemning those guys has absolutely nothing to do with the people in the content and in no way shames them.
It ain’t the women at fault, nor the content inherently, it’s the context and people fetishizing them in a way they prolly would’t be comfortable with in the first place.
Browsing through the comments a bit, I don’t really see them fetishizing it as even close to children. They just happened to be into petite women, the smaller the better. On the opposite extreme is stuff like the BBW fetish people who want the woman to be as large as possible.
There are definitely people out there who are probably looking at them just because it’s as close as they can legally get to teen, but I’m not really seeing much of that in that particular community at least not out in the open. It’s definitely possible to be interested in extremely petite bodies without it having literally anything whatsoever to do with any potential similarities to underage women.
If I had to guess it’s probably mostly just people who like being in control, the idea of an adult partner who is so small that you can literally pick them up with ease and use them like a toy. I found a decent number of comments that seems to be on that sort of track.
From what I can see of the age verification almost all of these women have been involved in some form of pornography even just magazine or video so I doubt that they are particularly uncomfortable about being looked at it’s actually. There’s always going to be creeps who think about you and weird ways in that industry it’s not something you go into not knowing that.
Now I’m not trying to be too overly defensive of this particular community, just trying to remind people to not get overly banhammer happy. That’s how Echo Chambers start to form
Not specifically porn groups, I said not to be too banhammer happy. They were basically accused of being borderline pedophiles so everyone should block them. But I just can’t see any evidence of that, it’s literally the main sidebar rule that age verification is required and it’s in every post I looked at as the rules required. And I didn’t see anyone doing anything other than the usual creepy comments about how they want to fuck her that you will see on literally any porn forum.
That sort of jump to conclusions ban first mentality is what starts to lead to Echo chambers. Not from Banning porn specifically but just the mindset of ban first don’t verify
News to me, when I took up a stance over there in the form of a comment the other day people barraged my inbox for two days and never mentioned any sort of age verification measures, now I’m blocked. I hope they get audited regularly.
196 has always been fascinating to me, I’ve gotten barraged on the old subreddit before for being anti lolicon and a lot of dubious comments borderline defending creepy stuff get a lot of tracktion sometimes - only served to make me more aggressive on the topic which is prolly a good thing for me.
I get we’re a bunch of kinky queers and people are thus quick to get defensive about any percieved policing of sexuality, but there are some things that make me feel like some people here have alterior motives and there’s people who haven’t really thought about ethics in relation to pornographic content that buy into the former group’s narrative a little too quickly.
What counts as a tankie? Someone left of Social Democrats? Anyone who thinks Lenin was kinda based? Or is it people who love Mao, or Stalin? Or what exactly counts?
You can easily advocate for the overthrow of the government without defending terrible shit. This sort of argument stinks like the people who claim critical support for Hamas. The idea that you must stand one genocidal team is bullshit. You can take a principled position.
Leftism isn’t inherently anti-hierachy. Rather, different leftists take issue with different types of hierarchy. Marxists tend to hate class hierarchy, Marxist-Leninists tend to believe it to be a useful tool in developing to a stage where Socialism is possible, and Anarchists tend to think that all hierarchy is unjust, preferring mutualism.
Then there are Left-Comms, who, depending on country, either love Marx and Lenin but reject Marxism-Leninism, or reject Lenin and purely love Marx. They tend to prefer Council Communism rather than Vanguardist Marxism-Leninism, as they believe councils are justifiable as they are democratically participated in but reject Vanguardism.
I might be too new, but I haven’t actually seen much of that at all. The farthest I’ve seen is adding context to events like collectivization in the USSR, which you can point out and still disagree with it, but prove that it’s misrepresented in American News sources.
I’m not a Marxist-Leninist, but I think one of the most eye-opening things to learn is just how much propaganda is used by every country. Learning from other points of views, assuming historically accurate and verified, helps combat the notion that any states are good.
Social Dems, in my experience, are generally people with hearts in the right place, but haven’t yet done any structural analysis. Essentially, they recognize that the current states with the highest standards of living are Social Democracies, and form their political and economic beliefs around replicating current “success,” without actually taking it a step further and performing historical analysis or looking at trends.
There are SocDems that are incredibly based, and those are people who support third-world countries becoming Social Democracies as a means to achieve Socialism and Communism in the long run, as they can combat Imperialism and provide more for their people as they develop.
The issues with developed Social Democracies still stem from Capitalism lasting beyond the developing phase. In Scandinavian countries, we still see brutal, awful organizations like Nestlé brutalizing developing nations, rising disparity, and declines in equity. Social Democracies are better than Neoliberal Republics like the US, but still aren’t “good.”
Wow that is a very one sided comment. So to speak, all leftists have a long standing history, but capitalism doesn’t?
Social demo is literally socialism with working capitalism aka leftist but improved liberalism. And from what I know capitalism is as old as the 16th century.
No, that’s not at all what I’m saying. Social Democrats take their roots in Marxist philosophy, but seek reform, rather than revolutionary change. Revolutionary doesn’t inherently mean violent, but a total replacement of the state with a new one. See Rosa Luxembourg’s Reform or Revolution for information on why reform will never work.
Social Demo is not Socialism. Social Demo is a rejection of Socialism, as Socialism is simply a Mode of Production by which the Means of Production are owned in Common, not by individuals. Social Demo is Capitalism, with Social Safety nets, and has issues as I’ve elaborated on in my previous comment.
Your book case soc-dem reminds me of “we didn’t try real communism”.
In the real world you have soc dems who either choose a more capitalistic or socialistic approach. You can’t be a book case social centrist whatever you said.
In what way does it say “we haven’t tried real Communism?” Socialist states have in fact attempted to reach Communism, genuinely, and we can learn from their successes and failures along their paths.
In the real world you only have Soc Dems who are Capitalists. Soc Dem is a rejection of Socialism.
Lemmygrad.ml is full of Putin appologists. Some of them are from hexabear.
The oh yeah, what about Minsk Agreements that Ukraine broke?! is also a wild ride on misinfo as well. Russia agreed to pull out forces out of Ukraine borders. Guess how it went.
They’re conservatives. They demand a hierarchy where your betters are unquestionable and those below you are subservient. They promote this using the language of leftists, and the contradictions do not bother them, because words are just how you perform loyalty.
Right-wing politics are only the most blatant and fitting expression of that worldview. This tribalism is humanity’s default. Reasoned argument is a learned behavior - and some people visibly are not doing that.
Reality is a team sport, to some people. In their minds: things are good because good people do them. And their people must be good people, because who’d want to be bad people?
I’ve seen AnCaps defend Batista, lol. Even “defenders” of Stalin tend to agree that a lot of what he did was terrible, but will point out that even the CIA said he wasn’t a dictator.
Oh, well if the CIA said his decades of brutal autocratic power don’t count, I guess that doesn’t what the fuck are you talking about of course he was a textbook dictator.
Fuck Stalin, he was a brute that used state violence to go against his political opponents, and committed genocide against the Katyn region, as well as outlawing homosexuality.
However, he was not a dictator, not Totalitarian, not an autocrat, and people who point this out aren’t apologizing for the heinous shit I mentioned previously.
Do you consider presenting historical fact accurately to be apologia?
Amazing how he could do all that while apparently being a totally normal non-autocratic political figure, clearly beholden to democratic workers’ councils below him. Thirty years of unchallenged power (violently suppressing any internal opposition!) and that’s not at all the same thing as dictatorial power over a nation-state.
“Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by a lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist’s power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely captain of a team and Krushchev will be the new captain. However, it does not appear that any of the present leaders will rise to the stature of Lenin and Stalin, so that it will be safer to assume that development in Moscow will be along the lines of what is called collective leadership, unless Western policies force the Soviets to streamline their power organization. The present situation is the most favorable from the point of view of upsetting the Communist dictatorship since the death of Stalin.”
Direct quote from the CIA, never meant to be released to the public.
Stalin was a brutal, cruel leader. So was Andrew Jackson, who committed genocide against Indigenous Americans. Stalin was even more brutal than that. However, two things remain true:
People aren’t defending Stalin’s atrocities, nor desiring a system that gives people absolute power
This theoretical absolute power ML state has never existed.
Yeah, I read your one citation the first time. You, personally, here, now, are still listing a bunch of horrifying shit the man did, and could just as easily have not done, by his whim alone, during his decades of unitary executive power over a nation which brutalized any citizens who did not fall in line. ‘Well he had a team!’ Yeah dude, most autocrats do, or they get stabbed in their sleep.
I don’t understand how you can talk about purging political opponents and still not get that ‘well he’s teeechnically not a dictator’ is stupid word game. By the definition you’re using - does Hitler count? Does anyone?
There’s people here absofuckinglutely defending Stalin’s atrocities. And the atrocities of other allegedly-communist or at least anti-“western” governments. Those are the tankies we’re supposed to be talking about. When you say you’ve never seen them, I don’t believe you.
It is our national shame that Andrew Jackson was ever elected - let alone twice - but the motherfucker was in fact beholden to congress and the courts, and when his time was up, he left like anybody else. More recently, we had The Idiot try not to leave. Nothing that narcissistic bastard did compare with Jackson’s atrocities. And yet: if The Idiot had maintained power, in spite of popular opposition and without apparent limit, he would be an American dictator. And there would be assholes defending him, as they now excuse his failed coup. They’d loudly declare we’re a republic, not a democracy - and other word-salad excuses for their desired conclusion - and it would be exactly the same kneejerk ingroup-loyalist hierarchy game as saying Russia / China / Hamas did nothing wrong.
Where are the people defending his atrocities? Specifically. Citation needed, because I haven’t seen anyone defend any of what I just said, nor anyone believe a leader should have absolute power, like you posited.
That’s why I’m asking what your answers are.
Is there anyone actually defending any of the heinous shit I listed, or are they defending other sensible policies that a broken clock got right?
Is there anyone actually advocating for a system of power whereby the leader is uncontested and absolute, which has never existed in the USSR?
That’s my point, your definition of a tanky doesn’t actually exist in any meaningful quantity.
I’m not playing this stupid word game where it’s only dictatorship if it’s from the dictateur region of France, and any micron short of literal absolute power means it doesn’t count. Ask any normal person to define dictatorship and they’ll name all the shit you already said Stalin did. The mechanics of his inner party don’t fucking matter. They don’t change the effect. When a king has viziers and vassals and so on, and needs them to enact his next pogrom, that’s still absolute monarchy. “The riddle of steel” doesn’t make Charlemagne a respected bipartisan official. Dude owned a country.
You will almost never see someone describe their worship of that hierarchy, because they don’t understand there’s any alternative. It’s like saying things should obey gravity. But it is visibly the ideology shared by a shockingly broad variety of bootlickers. It’s what every Republican twat is saying, when their defense of The Idiot’s abuse of power is, ‘but he had that power!’ Listen to those people. They are telling you how they think. They don’t understand power can be abused. It is a contradiction, in their worldview. Either a figure has that power, and can use it however they see fit - or they do not deserve power in the first place. There’s no third option. This is every aggravating non-argument you’ve had with Elon Musk fanboys who think disagreeing with him means you have to be smarter and richer and less bald.
Cool, so it’s just vibes I guess. Not even once did I see anyone defend absolute power hierarchy defended, nor the heinous shit I mentioned defended.
The absolute closest is defending violence against settlers, which I’d argue is still wrong but is still rooted in anti-colonial, anti-imperialist sentiment, rather than a defense of genocide or absolute power hierarchy. You’re not going to find me defending people killing settlers, but you’ve still misrepresented them.
Sorry, no, you even denied Stalin’s rule qualified as that. He did a bunch of bad stuff but how dare anyone use blunt terms to describe when one guy in charge until he dies gets to do basically anything and kill his opponents. And nobody better call kneejerk defenses of that hierarchy a kneejerk defense of hierarchy!
Name an actual dictatorship. Tell me what the hell you mean when you use that word, if you mean anything when you use that word.
You made the blanket statement that tankies are those who “demand a hierarchy where your betters are unquestionable and those below you are subservient.”
Not once did you back any of this up without moving goal posts.
I ask you again:
I haven’t seen a single person defend the heinous shit Stalin has done that I described. Do you believe defending individual actions means defending the entire person and thus every extent of their actions?
Do you believe that defending certain aspects of the USSR, such as guaranteed housing, free education, and free Healthcare, means defending the Katyn Massacre as well?
Following the previous 2 questions, do you seriously believe people are defending Stalin’s abuses of state power wholeheartedly, and are doing so because they love hierarchy?
All of your points so far have been pure anticommunist rhetoric, and using the term tankie to avoid actually having to engage with leftist ideas.
Here’s a game: based on what I’ve said so far, do you legitimately believe me to be a tankie?
You made the blanket statement that tankies are those who “demand a hierarchy where your betters are unquestionable and those below you are subservient.”
If you notice, I actually made that accusation toward all forms of conservatism, so you’re not even doing a good job of this mindlessly rigid literalism. You seem to expect I’m describing unreasonable people who would come out and say “why yes, I am being unreasonable, thank you for noticing.” No, genius: I am describing inferred motivation behind visible behavior. Explaining that isn’t a moving goal-post, it’s how a fucking argument works.
All of your points so far have been pure anticommunist rhetoric, and using the term tankie to avoid actually having to engage with leftist ideas.
You could build a battleship from this much irony.
No, asshole, I don’t think you’re a tankie, but you are being an asshole by using a lot of their same stupid tactics, including and especially denying there is any such thing as a tankie.
You continue your rant to describe them as conservatives, and other than what I’ve shown you directly saying, you haven’t actually backed up what a tankie is, just a “conservative that uses leftist language.” You haven’t actually backed any of that up, nor pointed out how they are conservative, nor how they back up hierarchy.
It’s not really how arguments work, considering you just virtue signaled without making any actual points.
I’m fine with being an asshole to you, you’ve been nothing but an asshole to me. That’s just how this convo has been, really.
My point isn’t that there isn’t such thing as a tankie, or a dictatorship. Pinochet, Pol Pot, Hitler, and by some stretches, Stalin, are all dictators.
Here’s the nuance, and my driving, central points: what you describe as a tankie doesn’t fundamentally exist in the quantity you pretend it does. There are always crazy people on any side, but the people you linked don’t fit what you described, except in the most extreme, fringe cases. Meanwhile, the majority of people may be “edgy,” but aren’t supporters of the Katyn Massacre, or the numerous issues in the USSR.
That’s why MLs even have a term they call “critical support,” whereby they recognize leftist movements like the USSR, and recognize the actions resulted from material conditions and responses to said material conditions, rather than out of a moralistic desire to commit evil.
Pretty sure that covers it. There are very, very few people that actually fit your definition, and you extend it to anyone on the left that’s more radical than you as a way to disengage from actual leftist conversation.
Guess I should finish this convo by suggesting you read Marx?
My point isn’t that there isn’t such thing as a tankie, or a dictatorship. Pinochet, Pol Pot, Hitler, and by some stretches, Stalin, are all dictators.
‘You could call Stalin a dictator,’ allows someone previously going to the paint to declare there’s no possible way Stalin was a dictator.
Someone now pretending that when I condemn tankies, I must be describing all leftists, and all leftists don’t believe what I’m condemning, therefore nuh-uh. Even though that’s completely fucking stupid and the opposite of how labels work. Like there’s no possible way I am specifically talking about a minority of crazy people, the same way there’s no possible way I am specifically talking about the abuses of a by-some-stretch-dictator, even though you freely fucking acknowledge both problems do exist.
and you extend it to anyone on the left
An accusation based on literally nothing. The opposite of everything I’ve argued here. A fantasy of your own invention.
I wasn’t defending Stalin, I was pointing out flaws in your logic, which you continue to double down on. It’s like you’re in a shit pit, making your own shit castle, flinging it everywhere. Nothing you’ve actually said has mattered at all.
The people you’ve described don’t fit your definition. You’ve given a specific definition, then when asked to clarify, you showed people that don’t fit that same definition.
Cool, who asked? I’m accusing you of saying Stalin wasn’t a dictator, because that was kinda your central objection, several comments in a row, until I guess you forgot.
I am calling you a blithe hypocrite and you don’t even understand which claim you just fumbled. This whole conversation started with me saying tankies just like leftist-colored dictatorships and you saying ‘that wasn’t a dictatorship.’ Now you want to casually slip that yeah okay you guess it might be, “by some stretches,” and pretend it’s my fault for not dragging it out of you sooner?
You’ve looked straight at comments saying ‘I wish Stalin gulag’d more people’ and ‘the uigher genocide is a de-radicalization program’ and go, nope, that can’t possibly be defending the evils of allegedly communist countries. That’s still not a me problem. You can mumble about critical support, but there’s ever any context where genocide is an acceptable… political strategy.
These people are out there.
That crazy bullshit is really what they think.
Loyalist hierarchy is the best model explaining their crazy bullshit.
My central objection was to you operating purely on vibes, which you continue to do.
Your second paragraph is more you missing the point, as you always do, so it doesn’t really matter.
Do you really think people saying they wish Stalin gulag’d more people are serious? The second claim is half correct, there is absolutely mass imprisonment and mass erasure of culture, it depends on how you define genocide. Is it absolutely evil? Yes. Genocide? Iffy.
You look at everything completely black and white and give them ammo, because then they can turn around and say that China isn’t genociding Uighers, when you should just be saying that the de-radicalization program is evil regardless.
Tankies are people that defend or deny the shitty things done by ML states. People can appreciate some of Lenin’s ideas, but not defend the states inspired by his ideology. The Bolsheviks under Lenin set the groundwork for Stalin’s reign, with many of Stalin’s terrible practices being inspired by things Lenin did. Lenin crushed opposition and centralized power while he was in charge, with Stalin doing what Lenin demonstrated to be acceptable behavior for their movement. When you reject the results of democratic processes to gain power, don’t be surprised when your successor does the same. One can agree with many of Lenin’s ideas, so long as they recognize the weaknesses.
I don’t think this is an unpopular opinion in the slightest among leftists. The general underlying principles remains the same, the only thing that changes is people’s depth of understanding of the subject matter.
Similarly, I don’t think there are many people that defend the undeniably bad things done by ML states, just like there aren’t many liberals who’d defend American Slavery or the Trail of Tears.
People who I see called tankie most often are MLs who defend the non-shitty things done by the USSR, such as guaranteed housing, free Healthcare, and free education, and assume they also are therefore defending things like the Katyn Massacre or Moscow Trials.
I’m not an ML, but that’s why I asked the question, more aimed at OP than anyone else.
There are plenty of people that defend or deny the crimes of ML states. The MLs who don’t defend or deny the crimes of ML states usually don’t stay MLs. A big part of the entire ideology is not disagreeing with the party line in public. Democratic Centralism necessitates that you don’t disparage what the party internally decides on. The attitude of most western MLs is one of not letting their team look weak, which usually leads to denying, defending, or using whataboutisms to downplay the bad things done by those states.
I acknowledge the terrible shit done by America and the Democratic party, but I still insist Americans should vote for Democrats over Republicans in elections. This is because people need to make the most out of the system and situation they have to work with. I don’t think of Chinese citizens as tankies for supporting the CCP or Soviet citizens who worked within the confines of their government. That’s the system they had or have, so they do what they have to do. This isn’t the case with western MLs; not legally at least.
Western ML communities are basically cults that isolate you from outside friends or allies, encouraging you to push away those that question the ideology. You are free to leave, but through cultish tactics, they do everything they can to keep you in. If an ML acknowledges the crimes of ML states and the fundamental weaknesses in the ideology, tankie MLs will marginalize them from the group, coercing them to become tankies or leave. The non tankie MLs get driven away, or become tankies. It isn’t a stable state, as they will always fall one way or the other.
Fuckin’ hilarious how quick tankies become obsessed with avoiding echo chambers when on their own communities they have a ban policy of "anything to the right of unironically calling Stalin Daddy."
To actually answer the question, lemmygrad.ml and hexbear will remove most of the redfash content, but you’ll still need to be vigilant for individual users to block. Also, blocking users doesn’t prevent them from posting on your shit, just stops you from being notified or being able to see it, AFAIK Boost doesn’t have defederation for individual users so you’d need to do that over browser.
This comment brought to you by the absolute right to curate who is in your social orbit, same as in real life ya platform obsessed whingers.
Also, blocking users doesn’t prevent them from posting on your shit,
Good… On a forum based platform it’s better to not restrict people’s ability to respond to things, as it can help combat people’s ability to block those arguing with them right after making easily counterable points to prevent decent comebacks
Remember blocking on Reddit? It made it so you couldn’t reply to anything in the chain. So if someone different replied to you you wouldn’t be able to reply to them even though they aren’t who blocked you.
Nah, your right to keep debating ends when someone else decide’s they’re not a platform for further discussion.
No longer being able to reply to the blocker, and ideally not even being able to see the blocker is the ideal, and both the blocker and the blockee should need to agree to reopen contact for the block to go down.
Like a restraining order, stops the original blocker from raising and lowering it at will as a harassment tactic.
It’s a nightmare for harassment though, treating all blocking as a sissy snowflake shield renders it essentially useless for circumstances where the other user is really malicious.
In that case having a system like Mastodon’s that locks them out of Replying is better than simply covering them up. We can’t really rely on Instance admins to block all malicious users or defederate from all malicious platforms so there needs to be a certain level of protection from the user’s side.
I do think that Blocking and Restricting (preventing a user from interacting) should be different functions, you block communities and users because you don’t want to see them, but you restrict users because they are hostile, malicious, or make bad-faith arguments.
LoL you’re so delusional. Go browse their instance. It’s fucking filled with Russia and china dickriding or comparing Ukraine-Russia war heroes to fascists.
I will be downvoted but honestly I don’t care. Communists are the cancer of Lemmy.
Alot of things are a “cancer” on lemmy in my opinion.
My opinion on the subject is
I’m personally a believer in freedom of speech so If these extreme left wing folk want go go off galbanting about all that shite that’s all fine n dandy prehaps lemmy.world may benefit from being more pro freedom of speech prehaps not that’s not for me to decide it’s upto the instance owner
I tend to avoid blocking communities and people on social media as I don’t want to create myself an echo chamber. On other social media, such as x/twitter, I only block folk who are directly abusive to myself.
There is nothing wrong with protecting your sanity. Why would you want to be exposed to vile nonsense, you’re not going to read breitbart forums in your spare time are you? Like… You’re the only one looking out for you online. The platforms are just trying to turn your participation into profit.
While I generally STRONGLY agree with this sentiment there are some things that I either find too repulsive or offensive to want to see on my feed. People calling for the death of politicians, or insisting that everyone other than them is intellectually inferior, or just the general usage of derogatory terms… yeah I don’t need to be angry :D
ETA: it also felt like there was way too much Russian and Chinese propaganda on a lot of those. As an American that gave me the ick
lemmy ml is the omni-instance, it’s federated with everything except NSFW and a few outright nazi instances which have no right to exist. That’s the main reason I set up here, I don’t want proto-fascist admins deciding what instances I’m allowed to interact with coughworldcough
At first I was against ml not federating with NSFW instances until I signed up for one, and WOW it’s just non stop commercial spam.
I’m a leftie and can’t stand tankies, but lemmy is becoming a really intolerant place. On reddit we were all united against u/spez no matter our other disagreements. Here, after only a few months we’re talking about blocking instances and communities instead of just joining and viewing the ones that Interest us…
Perhaps it’s time to let this experiment run its course.
That’s just this community in a nutshell. A lot of people read the community header and think “anyone left of hitler is a tankie” and mistake this place as a nazi bar where they can find fellow fascists to talk with. It’s the main reason I use redfash instead because nobody’s mistaking that as pro-fascism like they would with the CIA-sourced ‘tankie’
With all its flaws Lemmy is still lightyears better than reddit where they ban you for standing up to nazis. I mean some of the more nazi bar instances will still ban you but that doesn’t prevent you from posting there, it just makes it so that instance can’t see your posts, which in my mind is a good thing because it’s less dealing with the downvote barraging and harassment that comes from posting something they don’t like.
I just want a news feed that doesnt constantly anger me and convince me to argue. I’d wanted to block TwoXChromosomes on reddit forever because I wasnt its target audience and got nothing out of it. So I’m personally enjoying actually getting some control over my echo chamber for once
Edit: Also, nuanced takes I disagree with? I dont block those. Its the batshit/extremist ones that I block, I dont feel they are really adding much to my life anyways
Guess what. I never saw two chromosomes unless I browsed by r/all. You have an ability to curate what you see, both here and on reddit. Blocking and defederating achieve nothing. Unless of course it’s an echo chamber you want to live in.
Lmao, I like how you started off your counterpoint talking about what blocking and defederating achieve, and then end your point with “it achieves nothing” as if that erases what you just said. I’m using blocking and defederating to curate my feed. While people are entitled to their opinion, it doesnt mean their opinion is correct, nor are they entitled to have me listen to them.
Add comment