Based on concerns from both the admin team and most users here, the lemmy.ml admin team decided to add wolfballs.com to our blocklist. There is just too much reactionary content that breaks almost all the rules we have here.

It’s natural for open instances like this one to develop blocklists organically, and so far we’ve only felt it necessary to block 2 instances. If there’s any concerns about other instances that we should keep an eye on, let us know.

  • @DPUGT2
    link
    -62 years ago

    I will try and find legal ways to discourage him from ruling in a way

    You’d prefer that people be allowed to use illegal means to end (once and for all) potential future Hitlers? Or, really, anyone they somehow believe to be potential future Hitlers?

    If there is a third alternative, I’m just not seeing it.

    I guess we’ll all be forced to relive (and ignore) Treaties of Versailles forever.

    • @plu
      link
      10
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      deleted by creator

      • @DPUGT2
        link
        -42 years ago

        Ok.

        So…

        1. How do they actually perceive or confirm that someone is a “potential future Hitler”? We don’t live in science fiction novels after all.
        2. Don’t those same science fiction novels actually suggest that sometimes we create potential future Hitlers by trying to use illegal means to end them, that we cause them to be future Hitlers when they wouldn’t be if we weren’t trying to pre-emptively assassinate them?
        3. Don’t some of those science fiction novels also suggest that in doing so, the protagonists have become the future Hitlers themselves?
        • @plu
          link
          9
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          deleted by creator

          • @DPUGT2
            link
            -72 years ago

            we have the scientific method in the realm of history and politics. You can analyze which interests someone supports,

            Ah. The one that has us run the experiment many times before we jump to conclusions?

            So like, if 1 million people had those interests and never became Hitler or Mussolini, then we invalidate those interests as a determinant of whether they’re actually going to become another Hitler?

            It sounds like you’re now trying to twist science so you can use it as an excuse to unperson those you don’t like. Extrajudicially.

            We are not trying to assassinate little baby Hitler clones,

            No, instead you’re suggesting assassinating real, live people. That you don’t like.

            • @plu
              link
              10
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              deleted by creator

              • @abbenm
                link
                8
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                This is what’s so disingenuous about the argument. We’re not talking about gray areas. There are shades of gray, however, in addition to shades of gray, there’s a very clear subset where there’s some stuff that falls into an indisputably bad category. Some people like to pretend this isn’t true and act not making the effort to distinguish clear cut examples is an exercise in high minded intellectual nuance.

              • Free Palestine
                link
                fedilink
                72 years ago

                I used to find it weird that centrists would always say “people you don’t like” when talking about the enemies of Socialism, because we’ve well defined who our intended target of so-called “authoritarian” measures are. But then it occurred to me that this has always been the centre’s rhetoric on the matter. Ever since the Bolshevik won the revolution and started to implement revolutionary policy to fight reactionary belief systems, the centre has implied the policies were random, without a clear target.

                The reality of their tactic is actually quite simple, however. The centre has to put our targets into the abstract, or the people who listen to them will realize our targets align with their class interests. Our targets aren’t randomly selected from a list of people we’ve just decided not to like, it’s oppressors and the supporters of the oppressors, the capitalist class and the supporters of the capitalist class, etc. If the people who listen to the rhetoric of centrists learned who we really want to go after - racists, sexists, people who abuse their power to implement policies of hate, etc - they’d radicalize out of the centre.

                also, mind you, the person being argued with was banned from Lemmygrad for arguing in favour of the Nazis a while ago. So I highly doubt anything we could say to them will change their mind on this subject.

                • @abbenm
                  link
                  32 years ago

                  the centre has implied the policies were random, without a clear target.

                  Right, and I think it’s important to bring light to this when engaging with people who want endless academic debates about free speech.

                  I guess I communicate about it differently, as I try to use broad language that can make sense to liberals and people who are disengaged from politics, but for me it’s a different way of saying a similar thing.

            • @CoinOperatedBoi
              link
              82 years ago

              This entire conversation is immaterial because Hitler was not the Great Man who single-handedly caused the Holocaust to happen. Fascism is a response to liberal capitalism and is based in the material conditions of the people. Mussolini himself was a labor organizer who spoke at length about class (after he denounced socialism, of course). Killing all potential Hitlers is not a material response to fascism. Socialism is.