1. Mod of [email protected] 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, @[email protected]

  • @[email protected]OP
    2•19 days ago

    I find it quite offensive to be exposed to such arguments lacking even the slightest bit of self-reflection

    Here. I’m just going to paste what I said elsewhere in these comments:

    But please, tell me why anarchists should tolerate anti-anarchism, liberalism, and ideological cover for genocide in their space. I’m sure it’s enlightening.

    Because talking with people who don’t agree with you is a valuable thing to do.

    If I’m wrong, and you take some time to talk with me, maybe I’ll absorb what you are saying, and take it on as a good idea. Probably not the first time, but it does happen over time. It’s good to be able to talk with other humans. If as soon as I’m wrong, you ban me, then I’ll never have that opportunity, and I’ll just go on being wrong and getting banned from places, indefinitely.

    If you’re wrong, or what you’re saying is applicable sometimes but it’s not a good idea in some other situations, letting me say what I’ve got to say might show you a new perspective. Or, even if you’re completely set in your way, it’s still valuable for the people watching the conversation to be able to see both sides expressed, and decide for themselves.

    I think it’s universally agreed that the places on Reddit and Lemmy that aggressively remove “the wrong viewpoint” are laughingstocks. A lot of the time, they’re doing that because they don’t have a good answer for questions people are asking or points they’re making. You’ve chosen to make [email protected] into one of them, in this one particular instance. Well done.

    You’ve asked over and over why I am supporting genocide. I explained over and over that what I’m saying is an attempt to prevent genocide, and calmly explained how. That pattern eventually starts to sink in, for people watching the conversation, even if it never does for you, and impacts what they take away from the conversation. I think it would be better for you to reassess your way of approaching conversation with people who don’t agree with you, but you do you.

    See how good this is? We don’t agree on things, and we’re talking to each other. It’s normal, it’s healthy. Like I said, if you’re insistent on making “your” community into one where that can’t happen, that’s on you, but I think it’s a bad idea.

    I think, if I’m being honest, that the lack of time and moderation resources is at the root of a lot of this. You made a separate comment about that under Blaze’s comment. I think that’s the real issue. I think if someone could wave a magic wand, and have moderation of !anarchism without giving god-power to any given person who’s also an active participant in an argument in the discussion, a lot of these issues would go away. I made a whole post somewhere talking about how mods being an underappreciated volunteer position I think leads inevitably to the “mods are power tripping” perception and pattern, whether or not it’s accurate in any given case.

    You’re able to run your instance however you want to run it. Good luck.

    • poVoq
      4•19 days ago

      There are certainly many things that could be improved about Lemmy’s moderation tools and general setup, I agree.

      However the core argument is not about “talking with people who don’t agree with you is a valuable thing to do”. There was no real disagreement about any topic where an exchange of ideas would be beneficial to both sides. Unless you have infinite patience, there is no point in arguing with people that don’t even realize how hypocritical their position is, in fact usually doing so only results in them digging in their heels and arguing even stronger as you are likely challenging some of their deeply held believes. I believe this is what happened, and your reaction in the original post itself and even more so in making this new thread to complain about someone not having infinite patience with you pretty much proves that.

      • @[email protected]OP
        4•19 days ago

        We have two very different opinions about what the purpose of moderation is. Among some other things.

        There’s a huge difference between “not having infinite patience” to talk with someone, and deleting comments from several different people who are trying to have a discussion with each another about how they disagree with your point of view, thus driving the conversation to some other location where people come to a broad consensus that you’re out of line. Honestly, that’s part of why I posted here, to serve as a check to make sure I wasn’t the one being awful. There seemed to be a broad consensus formed after all the discussion, which I’m happy with. The slrpnk authorities as a group plus db0, seem to have their own consensus, which of course they’ve got a right to do.

        If you’ve read some of my comments and exchanges and you’ve decided that talking with me would take infinite patience, then okay. If you’ve read Mambabasa’s comments and think they deserve a position of authority, then okay. I don’t seem to have any issues talking and interacting with a bunch of anarchists, and presumably a wide variety of people, in these comments. Probably I will continue to do so. Slrpnk can do what it likes.