Following this banned content and this discussion: provide that “fascism-communism equivalence” and “horse-shoe theory” serve only to legitimize fascists, would you (@all) find clearer adding to the policy that this kind of content is not welcome on this instance?

A sibling request here.

  • dioramaOP
    2·
    4 years ago

    (I lost my long post so I try to be concise :)

    I skip the part about how horseshoe theory is used with circularity.

    I just briefly add that the “circularity” of the theory is used both by centrists to eventually dismiss any difference btw. nazism and communism/anarchism/etc., and by red-brown/nazbols/querfront/third-position personalities to poison the weel

    )

    Thanks for the feedback! Intention has never been in question because - luckily, and hopefully - is inscrutable. Hence, actions and responsibility count.
    The topic is community policies and the question is: how to prevent a safe/r community environment to be disrupted, and how the policies can help this goal.
    Actors can sinergically engineer this environment with harsh and tendentious communication. The ones who benefit environments with harsh and tendentious communication are the fittest, who are likely to be the privileged people plenty of time, attention, patience, awareness, studies, gab, … resources in general. The society many lives mirrors these conditions, hence one might expect with significant confidence the same ((hegemonic?)[https://lemmy.ml/post/35363/comment/8102]) dynamics of marginalization overflows the community if no one sets the margins.

    • lightstream
      31·
      4 years ago

      If I’m understanding you right, then I think it might be better for this case to have a less specific rule. So the rule might say, “propaganda - viz the deliberate misrepresentation of facts or theories to promote your political beliefs - is not allowed here and will result in your account being banned. An example of such would be pushing the horseshoe theory to undermine socialist or communist discussion”

      Additionally the policy should involve a series of warnings in all but really egregious cases.

      I do understand the problem caused by these bad actors, but one of their aims is to aggravate division and prevent free and constructive discussion and I think we should take care to ensure they do not succeed in that.

      • dioramaOP
        2·
        4 years ago

        I put an upvote but I do not agree.

        • I do not agree to defining that way propaganda. My comments are propaganda, even if I put my best efforts and good faith on one hand to disclose my point of view, and on the other hand to avoid misrepresentation. (which is ultimately impossible due to biases, yet there are different “quality” of misrepresentations)
        • Adding “deliberate” is sloppy: it is either very hard to address in a presumption-of-innocence model, or very easy to address in a presumption-of-guilt model. That means to increase the discretion (and the power) of moderation without a community counterweight.
        • To me, preventing the attempts to undermine socialist discussions is not a goal the community shall embrace. There are other Lemmy instances, for example this one, where one can fulfill that kind of expectation.

        I do not get the last paragraph since we are discussing exactly about that. Is that a rethorical repeating or am I missing something? The question is whether/how policies can help to reach that goal.

        About degrees of warning: they are already in the CoC.