moderatecentrist comments on Update: anarchist.nexus has been refederated

Update: anarchist.nexus has been refederated (lemmy.world)

submitted 6 months ago by lwadmin@lemmy.world to c/lemmyworld@lemmy.world

513 comments fedilink hide all child comments

🤡 5 🙃 1

Due to a (now former) admin of the instance anarchist.nexus calling for a member of our team, as well as anyone else they call a zionist, to be murdered, the instance has been defederated.

We're currently discussing how we will proceed with this situation and whether it will affect lemmy.dbzer0.com, which is mostly run by the same admin team, notably excluding the person who used to be on the anarchist.nexus admin team.

We will share further updates once we have them.

Update 2026-04-22 23:25 UTC: anarchist.nexus federation has been reactivated.

We are still discussing this matter, but there is currently no point in keeping anarchist.nexus defederated while lemmy.dbzer0.com is federated.

[–] moderatecentrist@feddit.uk 0 points 6 months ago (4 children)

I don't agree. I don't think people should have usernames of the form "kill all [certain type of people]".

If someone condemns Israel's actions against Palestinians then okay. But I don't think it's right to call for the deaths of people you disagree with. Even the worst criminals should arguably not be killed with the death penalty, but instead imprisoned for life.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

During an active military conflict, killing isn't applying the death penalty just for disagreeing with someone, it's typically the only remotely viable way to stop them committing whatever act they're in the middle of. When that act is genocide, killing them is almost universally the only moral action as anything else, even if it still stopped them, would take longer and in doing so let more genocide happen.

If they've been stopped by other means, e.g. economic sanctions make genocide too expensive to continue, then many genocidal acts carry the death penalty under international law. That's ethically dubious, but it's far from the biggest problem with anti-genocide law given that it's blatently not actually preventing genocide. If the username were just apply international law to zionists, then it'd still be promoting killing people.

It's also misleading to reduce zionists to certain type of people, as it conjoures up ideas based on inherent identity that are obviously bad to persecute before more directly comparable types of people like murder enthusiasts actively committing murders and refusing to stop despite pressure to. No reasonable person would say armed police were unjustified in shooting someone who was stabbing someone else after they'd been already told to drop their weapon. Not all zionists are actively killing people, but they are all calling for it to be allowed to continue, otherwise they inherently wouldn't be zionists.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] moderatecentrist@feddit.uk 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Surely it isn't necessarily true that every single zionist supports bombing Gaza. "Zionist" apparently means:

someone who belongs to or supports a political movement that had as its original aim the creation of a country for Jewish people, and that now supports the state of Israel

Surely some people within that definition support the existence of Palestine alongside Israel, and they oppose any harm done to Palestinian civilians. For example there is an Israeli charity, B'Tselem, which apparently supports Palestinian rights, although I don't know much about them.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

Supporting the state of Israel, at a time when it is actively committing a genocide, is supporting the genocide. Genocide should be a red line that forces people to stop supporting its perpetrators, and anyone who doesn't withdraw support once a genocide starts must be, on some level, okay with it.

Existing within a state doesn't automatically imply support for it. Most people have at least something they want their state to stop doing, and that can and does include existing. It's hard to say that a charity issuing statements that Israel is an "apartheid regime", "no longer a democracy" and "committing genocide" supports the state of Israel.

There are also plenty of people who, if asked, would say they support the state of Israel, but wouldn't support genocide, and not see that as contradictory because they're under the impression that Israel isn't committing a genocide. What they're supporting isn't the state of Israel, it's a hypothetical alternative state of Israel that doesn't exist. If (pretending for a moment that the USS Enterprise wasn't decommissioned in 2017 and was currently in the Strait of Hormuz) someone who mistakenly believed the United Federation of Planets was real expressed support after hearing in the news that the USS Enterprise had fired on other ships, it'd be most reasonable to just ignore them rather than assuming their opinion of their imaginary state was relevant to what their opinion of the real United States would be.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] moderatecentrist@feddit.uk 1 point 6 months ago

There are probably people who support the existence of Israel without supporting what Bibi and his government have done. Opposition politicians in Israel, for example.

Surely in any country there will be people (such as opposition politicians and activists) who oppose the current government's actions, without wanting the state itself to be dissolved. Even in very authoritarian countries like North Korea there might be such people, although of course they would have to keep their views private, due to near-certain persecution otherwise.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent