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.

  • adr1an@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hi, I happen to be a moderator on that community. I wouldn’t have banned you but I won’t put my partners’ decision under scrutiny if this is a temporal ban. If this ban is permanent, feel free to DM me, I’d like to review what happened here.

    PS. Moderating communities is exhausting! And terribly difficult given my account is not on feddit.org

    • Hozerkiller@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m going to assume this is a language thing. You really do sound like a nazi when saying “i wont put my partner’s decision under scrutiny” when the decision is to act like a nazi. You may want to reword or recend that comment.

      • phlegmy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And you sound like someone who is very quick to jump to conclusions without the full context.
        They remove all hate speech, including any from actual nazi’s.
        I don’t see how that makes anyone involved a nazi.

  • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    world moment

    E oops just noticed that instance is not actually world. My mistake

  • FelixCress@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    My grandad who fought in WW2 used to say to me “You don’t speak to Nazis. You shoot Nazis”.

    I may be less radical than that but I would gladly see all nazis and nazi apologists on compulsory re-education courses or in prisons.

    Edit: I hope the OP don’t mind me using this post in my https://lemmy.world/c/opisafuckingidiot community with the explanation that this time it is a mod who is an idiot: https://lemmy.world/post/25616034

  • Unruffled [they/them]@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    From an anarchist/leftist perspective this is a clear case of PTB. But a milquetoast response to fascism is one of the identifying characteristics of liberalism (unfortunately), so I don’t think anyone will be surprised about this type of censorship on a mostly liberal server tbh.

    • GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The issue is that by attacking people you are puahing them farther into extremism.

      Isolation from friends, family and other social support networks further intensifies social influence within cults. By severing ties with external influences, cults control members’ social interactions and shape their perceptions of reality. This isolation heightens members’ dependence on the cult for social connection and validation, making it difficult for them to seek help or escape from the group’s control.

        • GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It depends on how you approach it, you shouldn’t be friends with someone like that, but they need to undertand why.

          • _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They know why. They don’t care. You can’t care about what a person thinks and want to kill them. Nazis want to kill or enslave everyone who isn’t aryan.

            You’re fucking insane if you think we should be killing them with kindness. We need to just straight up kill them, because nazism and human life and dignity are mutually exclusive.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.worldBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Consider this a notice to avoid feddit.org… I’ve unsubbed and blocked the instance.

    … but that looks like a mod/comm ban, not an admin/instance ban?

  • Skiluros@sh.itjust.worksBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • Skiluros@sh.itjust.worksBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Doubtful from a legal point of view

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

            • needanke@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year 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).

        • Skiluros@sh.itjust.worksBanned from community
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

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

      • friendlymessage@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

  • bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If you don’t believe in human rights for Nazis, you don’t believe in universal human rights.

    Right to life is a the most basic one.

    Arguments about limiting free speech is on a different level.

    Fascists not caring about free speech, but exploiting it in bad faith, is the core of the argument and very valid.

    A three day ban is fine for something like this.

        • FelixCress@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Are you claiming that a person protesting against Israeli indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian men, women and children must be an antisemite?

          • bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No. What are you talking about?

            The only thing he did was make an equivalence between Nazis snd Zionism. That comparison itself is already tantamount to Holocaust denial and thus antisemitic.

            Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to self determination. Denying the Jewish people this human right is antisemitic.

                • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Your denial of the Jewishness of all those people who are Jews and are against Zionism or simply do not agree that Zionism represents them, is the true antisemitism here.

                  It’s not up to you and it’s not up to Zionists to decide that Zionism represents all Jews, it’s up to all Jews and a lot of them think Zionism doesn’t represent them, hence “Zionism” is not at all equivalent to “Jew” and hence anti-Zionism is not at all equivalent to antisemitic.

                  The previous poster’s metaphor is spot on illustrating your inherent anti-semitism in how you defend your beloved flavour of ethno-Fascist political ideology: Zionists claim that they represent an entire ethnicity - even against statements of members of that ethnicity that they do not - and then claim that criticism of Zionism is actually an attack on the ethnicity, going so far as explicitly calling actual Jews who are critical of Zionism “anti-semites”, all of which is exactly as the Nazis did using “the Arian Race” (including the detail of accusing members of the Arian Race of being “against the Arian Race” or “not real Arians” when they voiced opinions critical of Nazism) which is why the previous poster’s metaphor was perfect - how you and your ideological brothers position yourselves in relation to the Jewish People and use that self-proclaimed relation in your “arguments” is straight out of a Himmler manual on Propaganda.

                  You’re the only Racist in this room and by making arguments in the same style as Nazi Propaganda you out yourself as a rabid, Nazi-style kind of Racist.

            • needanke@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Zionism is nationalism. Mearly calling it a right to self-determination is disengenious.

              On the other hand I agree that implying an equality between Zionism and Nazism (as in the facist ideoligy) downplays the severity of facism and the Holocaust in particular.

            • FelixCress@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to self determination

              May have been in XIX or in the first half of XX century. At the moment it is a deeply racist movement denying Palestinians the same rights Jews enjoy.

              Also Israeli government, supported by Zionist parties is definitely including nazis. So while I don’t argue that zionism is equivalent to nazism I can see where he was coming from.

              • bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You are misrepresenting Zionism. It has always had different ideological strains.

                If you believe in a two state solution, congratulations you are a Zionist.

                I can see where he was coming

                Demonization, delegitimization, antisemitism.

                • FelixCress@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Demonization, delegitimization, antisemitism

                  Stop talking rubbish. Criticism of Israel and/or zionism is not antisemitic.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your first sentence is simply incorrect. Nazis chose their lot. They weren’t born into it. Why are their lives Inviolate despite their expressed Desire to see others killed? They’re not Try again

    • Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Depends on the murderer. Dexter has great ratings because people do in fact support murder of people who kill and aren’t being held accountable, at least in theory.

          • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think the key difference is that no one was bringing Brian Thompson to justice.

            The nature of humans is that they seek justice for themselves. Congress and the courts are, in theory, an uneasy compromise to offer people justice in exchange for demanding that they don’t go out and make justice for themselves. Because we’ve seen where that leads, and it sure isn’t good.

            You can believe in the rule of law and still think Brian Thompson deserved to die. Because by any legal standard, he committed more homicides than pretty much everyone on death row. And yet, somehow, our system is so twisted up that it is fine. Everything Thompson did was perfectly legal. Just like slavery, segregation, and the holocaust.

            I don’t think killing CEOs at random is a route to any good thing. Bringing random violence into the political equation serves one side only, and it is not ours. But it is perfectly consistent to condemn murder and still support Luigi, in reality.

            • bleistift2@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              legal […] like the holocaust.

              Funnily, German law did not change during the holocaust, and Germany still convicts people for being accessories to murder in concentration camps under the laws of the 1940s.

  • MissGutsy@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    feddit.org is a German hosted instance that has to abide by the German law. By that law, your comment falls into a grey-zone of legality. As much as I agree with you, they were right in removing your comment, as they are legally obligated to. They could get into trouble if they don’t.

    To quote the feddit.org sidebar:

    Content that is illegal in Germany, Austria or Switzerland will be deleted and can lead to an immediate ban of the account.

    • FelixCress@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can you quote an article of German law forbidding calling nazis (or any other violent political group) pieces of shit?

      It is a genuine question - I am not familiar with German law.

      • MissGutsy@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Not that directly, but saying they have “zero worth” might be against GG Article 1

        Human dignity is inviolable

        Pretty sure dehumanizing can be prosecuted under this, even if its rather tame. Also there have been some laws over the last few years that criminalize violent speech on the internet and that give people the ability to report comments directly to agencies. These might make it quite dangerous for the instance to keep up these comments.

        I assure you, German leftist often say way more intense stuff on a daily basis, but not on publicly hosted servers