Comment and thread in question: https://lemmy.world/comment/23138585
Ban from that community, memes@lemmy.ml:
Rule 1 of said community: Be civil and nice.
Rule 1 of said instance: No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
I was clearly not bigoted in any manner, and I believe more civil than the way I was treated, was it the Code of Conduct? Excerpts:
Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be mean or rude.
Respect that people have differences of opinion and that every design or implementation choice carries a trade-off and numerous costs. There is seldom a right answer.
I think I was kind with the people I disagreed with, even if they could not be in return, yet those comments (some including ableist slurs) remain. I think this is enough to demonstrate it is merely a difference in ideology which motivated the ban. Well, bans, because it seems they copied and pasted the same ban in all the communities they have access to:
It’s not a general lemmy.ml ban, just those in particular.
I understand this kind of behavior in safe space communities that don’t want outsiders bellyaching about the pragmatism of electoral politics, but that’s not the case in any of the communities I’ve been banned from, nor is it a part of the instance rules or CoC.
PTB or triggered shitlib? Not an exclusive or, of course.
@calmblue75@lemmy.ml explained why your comments were being perceived as problematic but you didn’t didn’t read the room. You might actually be in agreement with the community, but your choice of words reads as “a little genocide is acceptable.”
All genocide is unacceptable. All mass murder is unacceptable. Putting the unacceptable onto a scale of better or worse is a liberal propaganda tactic that doesn’t fly in leftist spaces. Your mistake was conflating the concept of “voting to minimize harm in a captured system” with “my genocide is more ethical than their genocide,” which is a fallacy. No genocides are ethical.
isn’t making the minimally harmful choice always ethical?
i think it’s about morality than ethics but ethics and economics (ironically) used to be connected, and part of the same discipline. Economics being quantifiable theories, and ethics being unquantifiable.
In this case, you could easily say any genocide is infinitely bad. So comparing one genocide to two genocides isn’t really possible… it’s an unquantifiable loss.
however in this case, in the captured system where two parties are pretty much the only possible winner, we can make an ethical argument for voting for the “lesser genocide”, but really only because they’re both propping up the same genocidal regime, but one is much more into it, wants to develop buildings where the people were, as well as wage other genocides.
besides, it’s much better to be able to protest without being labeled a terrorist and disappeared to some secret, third world torture prison (like cecot and liberia).
it’s really hard to think of a worse president.
i don’t see how “i want to stop this genocide and others” translates into “a little genocide is okay”. Or normalizing genocide…
i remember shortly before they switched from biden to harris, harris released a statement about protestors calling them all antisemitic and completely ignoring what they were actually protesting, and i hate her with all of my heart for that.
but she never wanted to arrest them and deport them to a foreign torture prison for life.
even in math, some infinities are greater than others. I’ve seen interviews with palestinians that said they’d prefer Harris for the same reasons.
like if someone said they’ll either shoot you or stab you and you get to choose, you wouldn’t say nothing because that makes a little bit of stabbing okay.
I think the problem is that certain users chose to scape goat voters. In the end, not voting for genocide and voting for less genocide can both be seen as ethical. In either case, what followed is entirely the fault of the party that pushed the genocide as their main platform point even if it was clearly deeply unpopular and frankly ghoulish.
I think it’s also wrong to assume the dems would have done the genocide “better” than trump, and kind of silly to even present as an argument. Both are clearly in Israel’s pocket and even a little genocide (it would have been a lot under both imo) is really messed up.
The scapegoating also minimizes the genocide. Implying it should have been overlooked is softening it and what I consider Israeli propagada. It turns it into a voting issue, something we can decide on instead of what it is, essentially the world’s greatest evil.
I guess the best is to understand that it was a complex situation, but that it isn’t up to voters to change what they can stomach but up to the dems to take the genocide out of the equation. Blaming voters sends the opposite message.
This is the best response I’ve ever seen in relation to the constant voter-blaming.
I agree. In this case I think it was unfortunate wording that was perceived to carry a different meaning than intended. With discussions like this, especially among leftists, “less bad” or “less harmful” is preferred over “better,” since that carries some implied support.