Hello everyone! RockSlayer here with another mod update. Recently we had a metapost (found here!) seeking to amend the rules in light of a public disagreement between myself and another mod. Based on feedback from that metapost, we will be implementing a rule banning support for authoritarians. This is one more chance to provide feedback before we codify this rule as written:
Unconditional support of authoritarians will not be tolerated.
Just to be clear ideologically, we are not becoming an anarchist community or using an overly broad definition of authoritarianism. As an anarcho-syndicalist myself, balancing this rule to prevent the exclusion of statist ideologies is of the utmost importance to me; that is why the rule has the requirement of “unconditional support”. If you feel like there is a better way to phrase this new rule, please give us your suggestions!
You must log in or register to comment.
Edit: sorry, I deleted my comment right after I posted it, but after you took the time to write out your answer, I’ll try to re-write my question as best I can remember it. 😬
What will be the determination by which this rule has been violated? What I mean to say is that conversations can get pretty nuanced. What is the line? How will this rule be enforced? People can interpret this rule many ways.
fair question, imo I think it will require the context of the conversation. Say for example there’s a conversation discussing Stalin’s time as head of the USSR. If people are following our posting expectations and other existing rules, they should never end up giving unconditional support to that authoritarian. If a person is violating our other rules and posting expectations while also saying things like (please keep in mind this is a very simplified example) “Stalin did nothing wrong” then they’d be found in violation of this specific rule and receive a temporary ban (getting progressively longer per infraction). If a claim is made in the course of a good faith conversation that could reasonably be considered in violation, we will require reliable sources to back up the claim or remove the comment.
This sounds very reasonable. I couldnt see how „unconditional“ would play out but now that you clarified it, I am in favor.
Over on Reddit, in /r/enlightenedcentrism, they banned me for advocating nonviolence. I shit you not.
What a refreshing take. All the socialist and leftist subreddits have been taken over by tankies who are heavy with the ban hammer on anyone who expresses any kind of opinion that maybe we should do things differently than Stalin did.
Glad to be back on lent where it’s free.
Fine. I’ll follow your rules until the revolution.
Then. I probably won’t have internet access and be living in a cave.
But after that, yeah, after that, who am I kidding, we’re gonna be dead from climate change. /s
Is the determination of authoritarian based on ruling out individuals deemed authoritarian or based on ideological and policy criterion for what is and isn’t authoritarian?
Especially in a mixed state/non-state ideological environment, settling on criteria that everyone can at least be equally non-plussed about is probably necessary for this community to not become the latest rendition of the leftist on the bridge sketch.
