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.
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
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.
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.I can see where he was coming
A three day ban is now apparently Nazi. This word has truly lost all meaning. You are lost ideologically.
I can see where he was coming
A three day ban is now apparently Nazi. This word has truly lost all meaning. You are lost ideologically.
Well, yeah. We don’t condone murdering murderers, either.
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.
At least in fiction. Big difference.
Luigi seems to have a lot of support as well. In reality.
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.
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.
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?
Yeah it’s Europe specific communities that do these bans.
Nazis nepo babies ruling Germany triggers them too.
It is kinda like Lemmy.world… It ain’t admins who are clowns but the mods of world news, news and politics… When Luigi happened they tried to blame admins but if you notice recently the most active Luigi community is on Lemmy.world.
So it seems like it ain’t admin but the mods who made the luigi censorship call. It had nothing to do with the law either…
Lying pieces of shit lol.
You’re right. I scrolled through the instances top communities. Most seemed political, and are pretty small, so I just assumed it’s a propaganda mill. Might not be.
It’s not a propaganda mill, feddit.org is the biggest German instance (since feddit.de essentially shut down)
To add to this, the “Bundestag” is elected in a week, which is why everything is about politics right now. It doesn’t help, that the political debate in Germany is extremely heated right now.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Doubtful from a legal point of view
Can you quote the section of German law you based this assessment on?
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__130.html
(1) Anyone who, in a manner that is likely to disturb the public peace,
- 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
- 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).
No, you need to read about the paradox of tolerance.
You have to shut down the Nazis before they shut you down.
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.
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.
