cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/6400327
[https://sh.itjust.works/post/6400327] > In case anyone is wondering, it’s rqd2.
> > >
[https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/93d08422-cab7-4b38-a23d-884c7925f346.webp]
> > The definition of paraphilia is “a condition characterized by abnormal
sexual desires, typically involving extreme or dangerous activities.”, which can
inclde pedophilia. > > It has recieved 4 censures from fediseer due to the
content contained on that instance
[https://gui.fediseer.com/instances/detail/rqd2.net] > > Not a good look for
Lemmy to be promoting any instance like that. > > You can see for yourself here
[https://join-lemmy.org/instances] > Update: A pull request was sent to remove
the sus instance. It should no longer show up soon
[https://github.com/LemmyNet/joinlemmy-site/pull/247]
see linked post. I believe this would count as one of the examples given in the federation policy https://lemm.ee/post/401063 :
An instance which is knowingly spreading CSAM into the federated network
The example you gave is a bit unfortunate - the word “Nazi” totally lost it’s meaning and the scope is ever increasing - it’s not more “bad/evil” nowadays. It’s like people forgot another words when disagreeing with someone. It could be you being banned as “nazi” some day and some chump will (mis)quote the paradox of tolerance in comments and pat themselves at the back for all the upvotes :D After all, nobody likes Nazis, right?
Just because someone used the word wrong doesnt mean we cant ban Nazis. Nazis are a clearly defined bunch. Fascists are a more broader category of people who also shouldn’t be supported. Authoritarian people? That’s where we get into a really big scope.
As a German I oppose the use of the word Nazi for Non-NS-fascism. Nazis are a very distinct variety of fascism with a horrible past. This is not to be diluted by throwing in “regular” fascist dictators like Mussolini in there. That guy and his cronies were some of the worst people one can imagine, but they were nothing compared to their disgusting German counterparts.
So no, I can’t agree with you that calling fascists Nazis “works perfectly well”.
Nazi is the Kleenex of fascism. You aree literally correct, but in practice people generally know it means fascist and not literally a specific political party because 99% of the time it is close enough.
Pretty much spot on, and if you’re dabbling in anything “tissue” related when it comes to fascism, I don’t give a shit if someone else is a little worse than you. You can all shove it.
Correct and an important distinction generally. But in the given context, what difference does it make? Would we ban a NS-Nazi, but not a Mussolini-fascist? In the brevity of the comment which started this chain, I think “Nazi shit” referred to both. Since both has no place, and both are very similar to each other for all intents and purposes of Lemmy moderation.
Yes, we could simply use the correct term and oppose ‘fascists’, but internationally, both terms are practically synonyms.
I think, you wanted to say “before we worry less about semantics?” Your post -at least to me- is quite nonsensical.
Besides, what do you think I said? Because I cannot for the life of me figure out how what I said ("don’t dilute the term “Nazi” because that dilutes the horrors associated with the real Nazis as well)is supposed to have any kind of suggestion for waiting in it.
If you mean that you’d have to wait for them to commit murders to be allowed to call them Nazis, then I strongly suggest you inform yourself about how Nazi ideology and other fascist ideologies work (hint: “the good of the state” vs “the good of the race”) and how this distinction acted as facilitator of all the atrocities commited by the Nazis. So if someone follows the Nazi ideology, they can be called a Nazi. Not that hard, is it? Or was that too “brain dead” for you?
This is a statement I hear only from people who think “nazi” means “evil”, and don’t notice that their personal ideology is drifting closer to literal fascism, but since it’s their ideology, what they believe is right, that means it’s not evil. But nazi means evil, so nazi can’t possibly mean their new beliefs.
But I assure you, it can. And it’s not scope-creep, it’s you-drift.
So on a more theoretical note: There are contexts in which the word lost it’s meaning. Some leftist groups are quite trigger happy with words usually reserved for the extreme right. I also heard in Russia, ‘Nazi’ has a different meaning than in the west, literally more “bad/evil”, a more general ‘enemy of Russia’.
However;
Just because someone used the word wrong doesnt mean …
I’d argue it’s regained its original meaning recently. 15-20 years ago we used to call people Grammar Nazis for correcting our spelling online. Now the people getting called Nazis have actual literal Third Reich style fascist beliefs. It’s more accurate now than in decades.
US conservatives used to actively distance themselves from nazis and fascists. That was before the Tea Party, which later morphed into MAGA. When a fascist movement became their key to power, they had to stop repudiating nazis and other fascists and start running interference for them.
The example you gave is a bit unfortunate - the word “Nazi” totally lost it’s meaning and the scope is ever increasing - it’s not more “bad/evil” nowadays. It’s like people forgot another words when disagreeing with someone. It could be you being banned as “nazi” some day and some chump will (mis)quote the paradox of tolerance in comments and pat themselves at the back for all the upvotes :D After all, nobody likes Nazis, right?
Just because someone used the word wrong doesnt mean we cant ban Nazis. Nazis are a clearly defined bunch. Fascists are a more broader category of people who also shouldn’t be supported. Authoritarian people? That’s where we get into a really big scope.
The word Nazi came from National Socialism, a brand of fascism. We use it to describe fascists; I think it works perfectly well.
As a German I oppose the use of the word Nazi for Non-NS-fascism. Nazis are a very distinct variety of fascism with a horrible past. This is not to be diluted by throwing in “regular” fascist dictators like Mussolini in there. That guy and his cronies were some of the worst people one can imagine, but they were nothing compared to their disgusting German counterparts.
So no, I can’t agree with you that calling fascists Nazis “works perfectly well”.
Nazi is the Kleenex of fascism. You aree literally correct, but in practice people generally know it means fascist and not literally a specific political party because 99% of the time it is close enough.
Pretty much spot on, and if you’re dabbling in anything “tissue” related when it comes to fascism, I don’t give a shit if someone else is a little worse than you. You can all shove it.
Tempo, not Kleenex. The Klan is Kleenex.
Correct and an important distinction generally. But in the given context, what difference does it make? Would we ban a NS-Nazi, but not a Mussolini-fascist? In the brevity of the comment which started this chain, I think “Nazi shit” referred to both. Since both has no place, and both are very similar to each other for all intents and purposes of Lemmy moderation.
Yes, we could simply use the correct term and oppose ‘fascists’, but internationally, both terms are practically synonyms.
So should we wait until the fascists start burning people before we worry more about semantics?
This is such a braindead response.
I think, you wanted to say “before we worry less about semantics?” Your post -at least to me- is quite nonsensical.
Besides, what do you think I said? Because I cannot for the life of me figure out how what I said ("don’t dilute the term “Nazi” because that dilutes the horrors associated with the real Nazis as well)is supposed to have any kind of suggestion for waiting in it.
If you mean that you’d have to wait for them to commit murders to be allowed to call them Nazis, then I strongly suggest you inform yourself about how Nazi ideology and other fascist ideologies work (hint: “the good of the state” vs “the good of the race”) and how this distinction acted as facilitator of all the atrocities commited by the Nazis. So if someone follows the Nazi ideology, they can be called a Nazi. Not that hard, is it? Or was that too “brain dead” for you?
Oh shit a grammar Nazi.
I heard the same shit from conservatives just before Charlottesville
Sus.
This is a statement I hear only from people who think “nazi” means “evil”, and don’t notice that their personal ideology is drifting closer to literal fascism, but since it’s their ideology, what they believe is right, that means it’s not evil. But nazi means evil, so nazi can’t possibly mean their new beliefs.
But I assure you, it can. And it’s not scope-creep, it’s you-drift.
I guess you hit it.
So on a more theoretical note: There are contexts in which the word lost it’s meaning. Some leftist groups are quite trigger happy with words usually reserved for the extreme right. I also heard in Russia, ‘Nazi’ has a different meaning than in the west, literally more “bad/evil”, a more general ‘enemy of Russia’.
However;
I’d argue it’s regained its original meaning recently. 15-20 years ago we used to call people Grammar Nazis for correcting our spelling online. Now the people getting called Nazis have actual literal Third Reich style fascist beliefs. It’s more accurate now than in decades.
Grammar Nazi was never an issue, completely distinct meaning. And it’s so over the top that you can’t really argue trivialisation, either.
US conservatives used to actively distance themselves from nazis and fascists. That was before the Tea Party, which later morphed into MAGA. When a fascist movement became their key to power, they had to stop repudiating nazis and other fascists and start running interference for them.
Your kneejerk reaction just proves his point on how dumbass propaganda works.