1. Mod of !anarchism@slrpnk.net posts a great Greta Thunberg quote, but then tries to use it to justify not voting in the upcoming US election
  2. Multiple people point out that’s very clearly not what she meant
  3. Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod

Using your mod powers to decide who is allowed and not allowed to speak is not very anarchist of you, @mambabasa@slrpnk.net

  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    Here’s what I actually said. It’s three messages:

    You realize that allowing Trump to come to power is more Palestinian death, right? It’s literally right there at the beginning of Greta’s statement: This election is hugely important and, however shit some Democratic policies are when compared against what we actually need, Trump is clearly dangerous as fuck on a whole other level. That applies to the Mideast just as firmly as it does on climate change. Personally I agree with 100% of what she has to say here, both the first and second parts.

    You’ve mentioned this concept more than once. Can you explain? Are you under the impression that if any number of people don’t vote for Harris, the genocide will stop? Usually that’s how co-signing works, but that is not how this genocide works. That’s kind of the whole point. Running from a house fire outside into a dangerous blizzard isn’t “co-signing the blizzard.” It is reducing the harm that this awful thing can do, replacing a certainly deadly thing with one that is less dangerous.

    Greta Thunberg would, I think, be disappointed and angry that anyone would take what she said as a justification for ways to help get Trump elected. Let me highlight the very clearly written part that you seem to have missed:

    It is probably Impossible to overestimate the consequences this specific election will have for the world and for the future of humanity.

    There is no doubt that one of the candidates — Trump — is way more dangerous than the other.

    If you want real positive change, listen to Greta and fight for change outside the system. If you want third parties, support RCV and proportional representation, to make them viable. If you want the end of the fucking world, then don’t vote, or vote for spoiler candidates within the current system that makes them unelectable.

    The part of your statement where you say:

    So if any libs were advocating for both things and had their comments removed then I think there’s maybe a bit of PTB involved in those cases.

    I can agree with, except for the part where you said “maybe a bit of.”

    • Unruffled [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      The part of your statement where you say:

      So if any libs were advocating for both things and had their comments removed then I think there’s maybe a bit of PTB involved in those cases.

      I can agree with, except for the part where you said “maybe a bit of.”

      Ok, fair enough from your perspective. From my perspective, it is still entirely consistent with anarchism to outright reject calls to participate in a 2-party democracy by voting though. While personally, I see no harm in doing both things (voting + direct action) and wouldn’t remove comments advocating for such, another anarchist might see one thing as taking away from the impetus for the other, which is why I qualified my remark.

      Using your mod powers to decide who is allowed and not allowed to speak is not very anarchist of you, @mambabasa@slrpnk.net

      But this comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchism vs libertarianism/free speech and really isn’t a valid criticism.

      • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        I think if your “ism” involves telling me I’m not allowed to point out an urgent threat to both of our well-being and advocate for a partial solution, mechanically enforcing silence on me if I persist in talking about the threat, then your “ism” is a bunch of garbage.

        There may be a way of applying anarchism which isn’t subject to that laughably obvious danger, in which case I have no problem with that alternative way. Like I said, I don’t think this person is an anarchist. Most of their posts seem to be about the election, with only a small minority being anarchist stuff.

        • Unruffled [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Nobody is “mechanically enforcing silence” on you. There’s plenty of other mainstream communities and instances to share your opinion. But you don’t have the right to present your opinions in an anarchist community any more than you have a “right” to come into my home and berate me about voting. That’s just a libertarian free-speech(ism) mentality.

          • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            I think this is a difference of opinion between two different views which both have some level of validity. I may expand my response into a whole essay not directly connected to this issue, but to cut it short, my personal view is that a forum about anarchism is not equivalent to the moderator’s “home.” I don’t think the comments sections and content from other users “belong” to the moderators, to curate viewpoints within as they choose.

            I think being able to take it somewhere else and continue the discussion is a nice type of harm reduction when that does happen. But a quick look at Reddit, lemmy.ml, and so on will clearly tell you that having the idea that particular comments sections “belong” to the mods in question, like their home, such that they delete comments they officially don’t agree with as part of their duties, leads to a toxic result.

            I like that we can continue the conversation elsewhere. That’s the reason you and I can have this conversation, and it’s great. What I’m saying is that making little safe spaces where you’re not allowed to disagree with certain viewpoints is not the type of network I want to be a part of, regardless of what the viewpoints are, or whether I agree with them. I think that’s probably the majority view among Lemmy users.

            • Unruffled [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 days ago

              In an anarchist community, it’s anarchists who should decide what sort of content and posts they want in their community, not a bunch of electioneering liberals who want to swamp the entirety of lemmy with their US-centric liberal viewpoints.

              The alternative is that smaller communities like the subject of this post routinely get swamped with off-topic comments from larger communities and rapidly devolve into a shouting match between community members and a bunch of folks with no understanding of the community who just happened to chance upon the thread.

              imo Lemmy communities shouldn’t be treated as just another communication channel that the Democrats get to monopolize every time there is a US election cycle.

              I wonder what you suppose the job of a community moderator is exactly? I guess it’s open to debate, but keeping things on topic and preventing dogpiling is certainly part of the job. The reason leftists don’t let Nazis post swastikas everywhere is the same reason anarchists don’t want liberals posting about their particular brand of politics all over anarchist communities. If you want to have a liberalism vs anarchism discussion, then maybe pick a community that is more geared towards those sorts of debates, instead of inviting yourself in to an anarchist community just to tell them about how your opinion is better than theirs, and insist that your voice is heard. Your attitude just reeks of entitlement tbh.

              • AccountMaker@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                In an anarchist community, it’s anarchists who should decide what sort of content and posts they want in their community, not a bunch of electioneering liberals who want to swamp the entirety of lemmy with their US-centric liberal viewpoints.

                As far as I know, nobody complained about anything in the community, only the mod who decided to remove half of the comments, ban people making reasonable comments and locked the thread.

                This wasn’t a case of someone going to an anarchist community and starting arguments about why strong central authority is necessary or whatever, when you make a post, you don’t use your mod powers to pick and choose which comments you like, which you don’t and then lock the tread with a grand total of 10 comments.

                And if anyone was swamping lemmy, it was the mod who posted like 15 anti-Harris memes within one hour and made it half of the local slrpnk feed that day.

              • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 days ago

                In an anarchist community, it’s anarchists who should decide what sort of content and posts they want in their community, not a bunch of electioneering liberals who want to swamp the entirety of lemmy with their US-centric liberal viewpoints.

                The alternative is that smaller communities like the subject of this post routinely get swamped with off-topic comments from larger communities and rapidly devolve into a shouting match between community members and a bunch of folks with no understanding of the community who just happened to chance upon the thread.

                imo Lemmy communities shouldn’t be treated as just another communication channel that the Democrats get to monopolize every time there is a US election cycle.

                The weird thing is… if I squint my eyes up a certain way, I actually competely agree with you here.

                I think that the anarchism communities on Lemmy should be free of a person coming in and posting faux-anarchism, whose post history is:

                • Kamala Harris = genocide
                • Kamala Harris = genocide
                • Democrats = party of genocide
                • Kamala Harris = genocide
                • Democrats = genocide
                • Greta Thunberg quote
                • “Elect the Democrats” satire
                • “Vote Democrat” satire
                • “Vote Democrat” satire
                • “Vote Democrat” satire
                • “Don’t think, just vote” satire
                • “Vote Democrat” satire
                • “Don’t think, just vote” satire

                That’s the top of Mambabasa’s user page, going down as far as I really wanted to go down. Notice a pattern? There’s some general anarchism stuff, but the things they really put some energy and consistency of posting into, have often been electoral things in the recent past. They weren’t really that active until the election started coming to the fore.

                They claim they’re not American, but they sure do care about the American election. They claim they’re posting about anarchism because they are an anarchist, but they sure do seem to care a whole lot about who gets to win this particular contest for US state power.

                I think the anarchist community should be free of that. That’s the sense in which I agree with your statement here. I think someone who really wants to talk electoral politics, and comes into the anarchism community with a kind of “Boy that Kamala Harris, she sure is a stinker fellow anarchists, amirite” type of energy, at length and repeatedly, should maybe not be allowed to hijack the discussion away from the real anarchists.

                I spent some time talking with this person this week, just discussion back and forth, which is fine, and I just now today really formed a firm opinion that they’re probably mainly trying to influence the election in favor of Trump, and not just an anarchist talking about anarchism things. Yes, I think protecting the anarchism forums against that is important.

                I wonder what you suppose the job of a community moderator is exactly? I guess it’s open to debate, but keeping things on topic and preventing dogpiling is certainly part of the job.

                I mentioned before that I think there are multiple valid opinions about this. My opinion is that they shouldn’t be censoring things purely because of a viewpoint. I recognize that there are other opinions on it.

                In my opinion, Mambabasa is dogpiling an anti-Democrat (not anti-politician, but very specifically anti-Democrat) viewpoint into a community where it doesn’t belong, and the structure of Lemmy allows them to do that, because they are for some reason a mod. I think that’s a problem. More so than people coming in and disagreeing with them. I would never go in and say “Democrats Democrats Democrats!” as you seem to be strawmanning that I did. If I see someone in the anarchism forum already talking about Democrats, I might also say my opinion on it. I think that’s a useful check, maybe the most realistic one that can exist in a system like Lemmy, against someone doing which it looks pretty clear to me that Mambabasa is doing.

                Can you find a comments section in an anarchism post, where the OP didn’t first start talking about Democrats, and some Democrats came in and started talking anything about Democrats out of nowhere? That whole thing where people are coming from the wider community and just talking trash to the minority because they’re a minority, sounds like a strawman to me. Maybe it happens on !conservative@lemm.ee. I know it often happens in the other direction, where some outsider comes into a minority community and all the existing members of the community dogpile on them about how the existing community viewpoint is the right one. But even then, I don’t really think it’s a problem. It’s just people talking, which is the point.

                • cacheson 🏴🔁🍊@piefed.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  That whole thing where people are coming from the wider community and just talking trash to the minority because they’re a minority, sounds like a strawman to me.

                  It does happen, but it’s mainly on posts that got popular for some other reason, like a meme post (or a Greta Thunburg quote, in this case) that resonates with a wider audience than just the minority community. With the extra upvotes, it becomes more widely visible to “the great dismissive majority”. Some portion of them will feel compelled to comment that “minority viewpoint is stupid”, or what have you.

                  Depending on what kind of community we’re talking about, they may also be the target of sustained harassment campaigns. This is more common with LGBTQ+ communities, for example.

                  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    17 hours ago

                    I’d be interested to see how this happens in practice. It’ll be hard to observe, because good moderation should stop it from happening. I have my view about how it happens and how big a problem it is, but my view might not be an accurate view.

                    My guess is that when this does happen, it’s a problem with the wider culture. If people are empowered to be noisy idiots who are shouting their opinions, then as soon as they get exposed to a minority community, there are going to be a whole bunch of noisy idiots shouting their opinions at the minority. That’s not ideal, with escalating not-ideal-ness according to the unpopularity and vulnerability of the minority.

                    I think a grander and better way to address the problem would be to try to address the culture of noisy idiocy at the root. If the culture in general is that you’re not supposed to berate people, and you’re supposed to be open to learning instead of viewing the purpose of the network as of dueling broadcasts of opinion, then my guess is that a lot of that “we have to censor hostile points of view lest they overwhelm us” pragmatism will go away, irrespective of how necessary it was in the first place. I don’t really like this attitude that we need to censor the hostile viewpoints, because however necessary it might be, it’s also going to censor reasonable dissent, and it’s going to make weird little echo chambers like exist in some corners of Lemmy. I don’t think either berating the minority community or creating the echo chamber to protect them is a good solution.

                    Addressing the culture overall is not easy, of course.