51
Banned from !collapse@lemmy.zip </c/collapse@lemmy.zip> for calling out ecofascism (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I had to trim my screenshots due to being a mod elsewhere, so I can see mod names. I think the screenshot of the interaction really sums this one up. I initially commented after a brief skim of the article, basically enough time to figure out that it wasn't spewing great replacement bullshit, and then gave a little reminder that ecofascism is real and uses language such as "humans are parasites".

OP responded with a suspicious comment, and another comment pointed out the author's true intent, so I went looking deeper. At the very last part of the article, like 3rd to last sentence in the last paragraph, the author calls for a "non-coerceive" means to kill 70% of the human race. I called it out, and was banned.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

I'd like more evidence, since they never suggested that as a solution, but presented as a result of overshoot if we don't drastically change. Which clearly we are not. Earth Overshoot Day regresses every year.

As for saying the poor and powerless will be affected first, how is this not true? They already ARE being affected first now, and it's not getting better.

Unless I see more they're just saying what's been said by so many over the years, and we're not changing course. There's comments in here about how we can do this and that to take care of the 8+ billion we have, but... okay? Let's start? Like 20 years ago?

All I see here is overshoot facts, not a suggestion that we should start rounding up people or help the climate do what it's going to do.

And I finally found the actual post, and I guess saying that they didn't agree with the last part of the article or anything it suggests means nothing, huh? The ban might have been a bit heavy for just a single word, although there were better ways to argue the point. Doesn't make the moderator one, as they said themselves that direction wasn't a good one. Maybe OP should have argued if the article had merits enough to stay linked, vs. calling all involved names. And definitely inferring a name without evidence here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I was about to post the link. Now we can see the actual discussion. Was a ban needed, probably not from what's shown here. Don't know if OP took it to DM and escalated it. I notice a possible brigading of downvotes though... interesting.

    Nevertheless, the point of overshoot stands, and it will have an effect on population numbers. Like I said, it already is, look at conditions in third world nations thanks to the modern world's progression. But that's really not the discussion here, or rather, what it should be about. It's simply was the argument about the word ecofascist and is that ban-worthy, and was it FOR that? I guess it was, since that's all we have to work with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    See and now you are in here spouting the same lies that overshoot is inevitable as the divine right of kings. Its not. We can reduce consumption without genocide. Fucking hell, the urge to go directly to murdering people. There are no third world nations thats cold war alignment bullshit. There are vulnerable people to climate change, and from what I can see, systems that haven't fully collapsed yet. Kill your gods and your masters, theres still time to save the Earth before they murder us all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago*

    I covered all that in the other reply, this isn't the place. You're not wrong that we can make efforts. I think it's too late to fully turn it around, but something is better than nothing. Be nice if we started.

    Would you prefer non-westernized countries, developing nations, what? I just used a common phrasing, and it was clear who I meant. The ones who complained at the IPCC and got shrugs.

    But this is for unfair bans, which no one has even talked about lol. I think it seems heavy just from the actual posts. I suspect there's more to it, as there always is from one-sided arguments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent