We, the admin team, decry all forms of settler-colonialism, and we recognize that Zionism is a pro-settler-colonialist position.

Therefore we propose that should no longer be accepting of any Zionist accounts on our instances.

Please upvote for agree, downvote for disagree.

Note: we only count votes by instance members of dbzer0 and anarchist.nexus, plus a few vouched-for external users.


Hi mateys, I've kept things simple in the above text, for brevity, but in fact it took the admin team quite a while to get to this stage. We have discussed the policy change extensively, and a variety of different perspectives emerged. I will attempt to sum them up below as best I can:

  • The "this isn't that complicated" school of thought goes something like this: If someone is consistently posting comments that mirror Hasbara talking points (e.g. justifying the genocide in Gaza, consistently painting Palestinians as terrorists and Israel as the victim), then they should be instance banned. It's just not acceptable for Zionists to be allowed on our instances.

  • The "slippery slope" / "purity test" school of thought is that banning people for having an "unpopular" political opinion would potentially mean banning half the fediverse, if more and more of these policies were enacted over time. To attempt to mitigate this we are keeping the scope of this rule as narrow as possible, and I also don't think many of our users will be affected. Also, we typically don't have frequent policy changes, and I have no reason to expect that to change moving forward.

  • Another important discussion point was "how do we decide whether someone is pro-Zionist or not?" We can't always be 100% sure of someone's true intentions, we can only go on what they have posted and that is subject to interpretation. I don't feel there is an easy answer to this one, except to say that we would have to be pretty certain before issuing a perma-ban.

  • The "geopolitics don't matter" school of thought is that trying to be on the "correct" side of every issue is kind of pointless because nothing that happens in lemmy chat forums will ever make an ounce of difference in the real world. Don't bother moderating users over political/ideological differences, just let people argue if they want. While I can totally empathize with this sentiment, I can also see the case for taking a clear stance on this topic in accordance with our values and the overwhelming support for the Palestinian cause among our users. Personally, I am advocating in favor of the resolution.

Please add your comments below if you want to provide your own thoughts on the topic, or have any questions.

expiry: 7

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago* (19 children)

    See, but your one example related to this precise issue is bad, the 500 page Israeli report cannot be assumed to have any value and should only be assumed to have negative value when you understand that regime, their goals, their actions, and the consequences of it all.

    Of course bad info is going to be available, but your example of one that should be granted any trust at all is awful and indicates either your poor understanding of Israel the state, or the facts of the ongoing genocide.

    This question is not about general Lemmy behavior. This question is about specific moderation on a specific topic for our instance.

    Your take is bad, your frustration experienced elsewhere is not our problem or related to our governance decision here, and genocide accompanied by modern high-tech armies of propaganda whitewashing it does justify some REASONABLE defensive action, again on our own instance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (7 children)

    It's hard for me to imagine an official document coming from the state of Israel on any topic that I would place any inherent trust in, I would say I can't believe anything out of that government (any branch) that can't be verified in some other way, and I think that's the correct position to take given what I've learned.

    Anything that state produces has negative legitimacy to me by default, not no legitimacy, and that's an intentional position I take based on observation. Note that doesn't mean it can't have true information in any case on any topic, just that it carries negative legitimacy or expectation of truth by default, a lot of it, and needs more backup than even something unsubstantiated that sounds broadly likely from an unknown source.

    So it sounds like we fundamentally disagree on that. I don't feel the need to bicker about it if you don't, and I appreciate the measured reply.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago*

    I don’t have the confidence in my own knowledge to be as absolutist as you are.

    We're pretty far past needing a harvard style debate on whether Zionism is criminal. Thats just a fact and you know it. And if you cant admit that zionism has done unspeakable evil, then I dont think you are being honest about why you're here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    Well, let us know if you feel more sure, should you ever come to grips with the devastation being delivered to the people of Palestine.

    You're certainly right that there is "some information" I cannot accept. Again you make it general, again I maintain it's specifically "information" coming out of a technologically ~peerless, unapologetically (but certainly deceptively) genocidal state.

    There are indeed few things I'm absolutist on, even more crucially toward what other people should be allowed to do. Look at the instance I'm on and it's very well-stated principles.

    This issue is so beyond the pale. The further you go making this argument "but it's about accepting information and allowing discussion", the further you dig a hole shaped like "bad faith". It's a fuckin genocide. Brutal and despicable beyond all description. With armies of tech propagandizing. The argument that "information" from Israel as a state deserves any benefit of the doubt, out of some principle of fairness, or that "open discussion" is the crucial issue on this ongoing coordinated tragedy - that is absolutism, the ugly kind. Enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    that I would place any inherent trust in

    That's what I said and mean, the question is about credibility, what rough assumptions to use about the information, due to its source, before any further validation. It's a misread to imply I'm arguing nothing they produce can ever be shown to be accurate.

    I don't find it hard to believe kills are >80% civilian for Palestinians, no. It matches what I understand about the situation, acknowledging my own flawed ability to know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 10 months ago* (3 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 2 points 10 months ago* (2 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (9 children)

    , the 500 page Israeli report cannot be assumed to have any value and should only be assumed to have negative value when you understand that regime, their goals, their actions, and the consequences of it all.

    Meh. The literal Nazis released reports on smoking being bad for you. They were correct to suggest there was a link between smoking and lung cancer. They weren't correct to suggest the introduction of tobacco was a Jewish plot to weaken the master race.

    It's the whole argumentum ad hominem /argumentum ad auctoritas fallacy thing.

    Just because the source of a report is the Israeli government, doesn't necessarily mean it is entirely fallacious.

    Because if it was, by that logic if the Israeli government releases a report where they do admit doing something wrong, that's a lie because it's an Israeli report, and they did nothing wrong.

    Obviously, you should double check, etc. Especially when something comes from a questionable source or when it's about a contentious subject.

    Don't know if I understood you wrong. Maybe I'm just clarifying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    I think we're saying similar things. My point regarding credibility is that any document coming from the state of Israel:

    • certainly gets no bonus points on credibility (500 pages to the UN or however many characters to Xitter)
    • gets an extreme burden of proof and accompanying scrutiny for any statement in it to be taken seriously

    This is exactly as true for anything that came out of Nazi Germany as it is anything coming out of modern Israel, for exactly the same reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    The literal Nazis released reports on smoking being bad for you.

    The Nazis could have been reporting on the fucking weather - doesn't make them a trustworthy source for anything, let alone matters relating specifically to the defense of their existence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago* (5 children)

    If a Nazi says it's raining, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not raining. When the Nazis exploited the bombing of Dresden for propaganda purposes, that didn't mean Dresden was never bombed.*

    If a source is unreliable or has a vested interest, you take what they say with a pinch of salt and double check, but you can't assume everything they say is a lie.

    Also, Dresden has largely been rebuilt and is well worth a visit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

    Of course not - trustworthiness isnt an UNO reverse card that means everything they say is opposite.

    And that's what I wrote in the comment you replied to.

    It means they cant be trusted to report on facts accurately.

    That depends.

    For example, when the IDF claimed they weren't using white phosphorous in Gaza, that's obviously a lie.

    But when the Israeli government released a report detailing why their use of white phosphorous was justified, that report was incredibly useful as it allows anyone to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the IDF does use white phosphorous, despite what some would have you believe. That central fact can be trusted.

    Similarly, when an Israeli general leaked footage of the torture of a Palestinian, and Israeli media reported on that leak, large parts of that story were accurate and could be trusted despite the source. If anything, because it was coming from an Israeli source, the central argument that the IDF tortures Palestinians was more believable.

    You can't assume something's fallacious just because of the source.

    This is just common sense, but because this topic is so contentious, and everyone is so angry, so unwilling and unable to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, it's impossible and unproductive to have discussions about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    No, it doesn't 'depend'. I'm not saying everything they say is a lie, I'm saying you can't trust it to be true. Those are different things.

    Can you learn things from an Israeli report? Sure. But not because you can trust their accuracy, but because it says something about their intentions and state of mind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (31 children)

    This isn't really about constructing lines of defense for specific acts committed or not committed by Israel or Palestine. The perspective being expressed by this poll is about whether there is any justification for supporting a settler-colonial apartheid state from an anarchist or marxist perspective, and the answer is resoundingly no.

    There are plenty of people on the internet claiming to be the 'devil's advocate' - especially on reddit, especially on .world. You can have those places to test lines of defense for the state of Israel - but on an anarchist sub, it's reasonable to ban them because they are incompatible with anarchism. Generalist forums like reddit are cesspools for nazis for exactly this reason, and it's why I am in full support of the motion at hand - even for people 'just playing devil's advocate'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (29 children)

    The perspective being expressed by this poll is whether you can have dissenting opinions to posts about a settler-colonial apartheid state.

    Kindly, that's not at all what is being discussed. This is an anarchist instance - anarchism is openly and proudly hostile toward colonialism in all forms, which is why it's being discussed here. It's not a straw poll about if anyone is allowed to have a dissenting opinion, it's about if that type of perspective is allowed to be expressed on this instance.

    There is a difference between supporting a settler-colonial apartheid state and demanding a higher level of quality for posts

    You can demand a higher quality for posts all you like, just not on grounds relating to zionist positions or justifications. I'll leave it to the mod's discretion on what counts, but I think you're already treading on shaky ground.

    By removing opinions which question the status quo you will remove Zionists, but you’ll also remove those who ground the community in logic and truth

    Zionism isn't valid and isn't based on logic or truth - nothing of value will be lost.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (24 children)

    The soul of Anarchy is free expression

    The soul of anarchism is freedom from oppression. You cannot have freedom from oppression while tolerating speech defending it.

    The problem is that if you remove people who protest an issue you will remove the people you disagree with, but you will also remove people who agree with you, but won’t excuse poor arguments and discussion

    Talking in hypotheticals is a challenge. All i'd say is - zionism is illogical and oppressive on its face. If you're defending (or challenging) something along zionist grounds, it's almost by definition not lending itself to better argumentation or discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    I’m sorry, but that’s just your opinion. Emma Goldman represented anarchism as human expressionism and you can’t have freedom from oppression while limiting the speech of others.

    nobody is limiting anyone's speech. there is no barrier to entry for lemmy, people who would be banned can continue their speech literally anywhere else. another core requirement of anarchism is freedom of association, and that means the freedom to disassociate with people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    So because they can speak elsewhere within Lemmy they still have freedom of speech but they can’t have freedom of speech here? You walk a tight line by saying people can’t associate here, but they are allowed to associate elsewhere so it’s ok to prohibit them within your circle. That sure sounds like anti-persons of color talk in the 1960’s. Can I drink at the same water fountain as you?

    I imagine you thought this was a pretty clever argument. unfortunately, you are not very clever. calling us racist because we don't want to associate with supporters of a racist genocidal apartheid regime is a nice touch. it's very MAGA of you. how oppressed you are that we don't want oppressors among us. you'll find such arguments carry no weight here, and nobody is impressed.

    you have no idea what you're talking about, and you've wrapped yourself in a blanket of ignorance to comfort yourself. the rest of us can see that the blanket is covered in shit though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Except I didn’t call you racist, I implied you followed the same ideology of racists.

    that was an attempt at clever wordplay that means absolutely nothing. you're not good at this.

    You see people who are functionally the same as you

    nobody who is a zionist is "functionally the same as" anarchists. the two ideologies are diametrically opposed and cannot function together.

    You’ve taken someone who agrees with your ideals

    no zionist agrees with my ideals, or they would no be a zionist. you cannot agree with my ideals and support a racist genocidal apartheid regime.

    and ostracized them for not saying things the way you want.

    anarchists voluntarily associate into communities of like-minded individuals. this is a right that cannot be infringed upon. likewise, the right to disassociate from people who are not like-minded is also a right that cannot be infringed. they are a foundation of anarchist thought. any zionist is free to form their own associations of like-minded individuals. banning zioonism from our community does not infringe on their rights, nor impede them in any way from speech.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    So, let me ask clearly, do you think I am a Zionist?

    I do not care if you are. you're not on our instance. we're not being forced to associate with you. you probably thought you had some sort of "got you!" argument lined up. but I'm not concerned with whether or not some random .worlder supports genocide. this time tomorrow, I'll have forgotten you exist.

    the only thing I'm doing here is making sure anyone else who wanders by does not see your absolutely wrong position and think being a zionist and an anarchist are anything but mutually exclusive ideologies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Except your instance is federated and you do have to contend with me.

    yeah, I don't really think that's true, all things considered.

    I asked you an honest question and instead of answering it you avoided the question because you don’t want to contend with an honest debate

    I am not interested in debating whether or not I should associate with ethnocutural supremacists.

    I also don’t like your radical response to poor sources or arguments.

    first of all, I never asked what you do or do not like. nobody did. you're not part of the flotilla, or one of the instances thinking of joining the flotilla. you shouldn't even be here, since this thread is not for you and your voice is not recognized and will not be considered when the decision is made.

    my "poor arguments" are nothing more than arguments that you are either incapable or unwilling of understanding. likely the latter, since even a child is capable of love for each other.

    Represent yourself better and raise your own standards.

    my standards for association are clearly much higher than yours.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Emma Goldman (and just about any anarchist) defended the right to express dissent against oppression, not the freedom to express a defense of it. She openly advocated for theft and violence - she was a true revolutionary. She would have been the first person to tell you that there is no room in anarchism for the defense of any state, let alone a neo-colonial apartheid one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    You can express yourself however you like, but you might not be welcomed back to do it again if it's in defense of neo-colonial apartheid.

    This isnt a libertarian instance, it's an anarchists one.

    that sounds like authoritarianism

    On the contrary, it sounds more like getting your shit kicked in for showing up to a mosh pit in a nazi officer's uniform.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    When you attack the people on your side for not stepping in line with your exact opinions you are an authoritarian not an anarchist.

    that isn't what authoritarianism is. do not use words you heard online without knowing what they mean. nobody is having their speech limited, they are being told that we do not wish to associate with them if they engage in that speech. they can do so elsewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    The soul of Anarchy is free expression, how can you champion Anarchy while also promoting the limiting of speech and ideas? The two should be anathema to each other?

    no, the soul of anarchism is solidarity for all people. anything that goes against that is anathema to anarchism and cannot be tolerated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (28 children)

    You can't take devil advocate for a settler colonial power. Would you do the same when it comes to Russian invasion of Ukraine?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago* (26 children)

    You can always take a devils advocate position, that's why it's called the devil's advocate. In a room where everyone agrees on a conclusion someone has to argue the minutia of the argument in the spirit of debate. Without this the argument simply becomes a mutual appreciation society and is prone to logical fallacy, lazy arguments, and poor source review. Basically if no one calls out bad arguments because they say what you want to hear then your argument is no better than stupid conservatives watching Fox news.

    Just because you are right doesn't mean you can ignore logic, reason, research, or due diligence and you should be called out on it when you share bad sources of information or ignore reasonable sources without just cause. You might be morally correct in your belief, but if your rationale is based on a heresay argument or a logical fallacy then you're only eroding the validity of your argument.

    This is the spirit of Socratic debate.

    EDIT: And yes, if large groups of people on this platform were sharing shitty sources that were pro-Ukraine then I would point that out as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    People like you should be cast into hell with your devils advocate position

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Why would I be banned? I am not violating the current rules and I am not breaking the proposed rule. I haven't said anything supporting Zionist or pro-settler-colonialist positions. The only thing about my political opinion which I have said is that I am not Zionist and not pro-Settler. The entire rest of this discussion has been about the quality and standards of posts and preventing an echo chamber similar to Fox News. You're literally mad at nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    You edited this to add the Nazi's portion after I responded, but if you took high school or college debate you would know that this is a common debate topic to weed out poor rhetorical arguments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Yeah, you're right, no college organizes debates where people debate if it is morally wrong or right to kill innocent civilians or if it is morally ok to commit genocide. It is common for college debate classes and clubs to have a party argue Nazism (which is more than just the holocaust) as a challenging debate topic. It's a thought experiment where you must represent a side which you don't agree with but must provide the best possible defense while also not allowing your debate opponent to rest their argument solely on the historical outcome.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    If you're going to quote me, please don't add your own response into the quote as if I said it. Also, you're now conflating two different things:

    • Do college and high school debate classes/clubs debate Nazism as a topic?
    • Whether or not I should be allowed to playing Devil's Advocate for a topic because objectively one side is in the wrong.

    You don't seem able to separate debate to ensure faithful argument from debate to be right. Just because I argue that you should eloquently represent yourself without devolving into logical fallacy or poor argument doesn't mean I support genocide. Try to represent your opinion without the presumption that you are correct.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    The only one who does logical fallacies is you.

    Point one out

    The case of school telling a side to defend nazirs was widely condemned and stopped doing it

    Do you have any proof of that because it was a thing less than 10 years ago when I was in school, and here is an article about it in 2017.

    I represent my opinions without the presumption that I am correct when it is a matter of opinion which it is not the case here

    So you lack the ability to properly represent your opinions without relying solely on what you feel is correct.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    You changed your post again after I responded to it to add links so I'm responding twice.

    In the first link you provided, the teacher asked the students to specifically write hate speech. If you read the rest of the article the spirit of the assignment was to provoke empathy in the students. The professor assigned them to write hate speech, research Nazi propaganda, and then planned to read have the class read "Night" by Elie Wiesel (which I also read in high school). I think the main problem here was having the students try to write anti-jew hate letters. It's one thing to assign students to write hate mail, it's another thing to talk about the rest of Nazi Germany.

    In the second link you provided was a school administrator stating that holocaust denial literature should be treated equally with holocaust documentation. The difference here is that we have nearly 80 years of research and documentation showing that the holocaust did in fact occur so holocaust denial books don't need to be treated equally.

    Also, promoting holocaust denial at an institutional level isn't the same as debating the merits of Nazism as an exercise in debate rhetoric.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Again, please fix your quotations because they make it seem like your statements are my quotes.

    1.)

    You can’t seem to understand the difference between playing devil advocates for objective morality and just unpopular opinions

    You don't seem to know what the definition of "Devil's Advocate" is. Cambridge Dictionary defines "Devil's Advocate" as:

    "someone who pretends, in an argument or discussion, to be against an idea or plan that a lot of people support, in order to make people discuss and consider it in more detail"

    Oxford Languages defines it as:

    "a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments."

    2.)

    Again opposing settler colonialism , murdering innocent civilians and genocide is not a matter of opinion

    You also don't seem to understand what an opinion is either. Moral absolutism is different from subjective morals. Just because you are right in a universal perspective doesn't mean how you feel isn't an opinion. It seems like you can only see in black and white, either you're right or you're wrong, and because you know you are right you can't discuss any alternatives that might be somewhere in the gray.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    Because settler colonialism is legally and morally always wrong

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    So because you believe the other side of your view is morally and legally wrong they don’t deserve representation

    they can have representation elsewhere. banning them here does not keep them from taking part in the fediverse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    The real question should be do you want to be an echo chamber?

    an anarchist echo chamber? yes, please. I will not ever, at any time, under any circumstances, for any reason, for any person, even for a second, consider any ideology, opinion, or idea, that does not include solidarity for all mankind. I'm not interested in your "devils advocate", or your debate, or your differing opinion. if it is not helping your fellow man and lifting people up, freeing them from oppression from religions and states, then I want nothing ever to do with it.

    you cannot change my mind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    It's not about whether I believe it's a matter of opinion or not, it's about providing good arguments to support what you say. Saying things because everyone agrees they are true is one thing, sharing bad sources which support your argument is still a bad faith argument. Saying that people shouldn't critique bad arguments because they are representing a bad thing is a fallacy of it's own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)