There's only one mod of !mop@quokk.au

I commented on their meme about Kamala Harris being just as likely to commit war crimes as Trump with an admittedly snarky, sarcastic reply that basically said "some of us wanted to whatever we could, as little as it might be, instead of watching the world burn. Must feel real morally superior safe behind that keyboard"

They banned me from the community for it.

Kinda funny for a community that bills itself as "free from the influence of .ml"

modlog entry showing can of neatchee from mop community

altr

top 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 9 points 7 months ago

Me reading this comment section.

People please stop locking yourselves down into emotional traps.

I would argue that yes the ban is heavy handed but you should have known where you were commenting as well. I truly understand your position as in France that's what we are forced to do every 5 fucking years. Just please try to be more diplomatic in your comments next time and I am sure that you would not have been banned.

Imagine what it's like for someone of colour to have to vote for a prosecutor as the alternative of the Devil. It's like voting for the middle manager of Hell.

Everyone here is right in their own way but please chill.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    defends a right wing cop in an anarchist space

    YDI

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Didn't defend Kamala. Defended the people who chose to vote for her instead of abstaining. Very big difference

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I got banned in that very same thread as well, for the same reasons. Although admittedly I was being quite venomous so I guess I deserved it, but still. It's a community filled with people who think that they didn't participate in voting, so they're free of blame for everything happening right now

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] -1 points 7 months ago

    Yeah I've now got anarchists showing up, telling me I'm "invading their anarchist space with classic neoliberal talking points" but that community outright claims to be socialist? I'm pretty sure that entire community is a bunch of anarchists trying to get actual socialists to shift towards crazy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -16 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Kamala Harris has never in her life been a police officer, that's disinformation spread by people who need to lie in order to be convincing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    she was literally a prosecutor who laughed in an interview about charging single mothers with possession while she was also smoking weed. what kind of shitlib anarchist pretender are you, that you're defending a class traitor like that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Well what you've just said is the truth, and I like it much better than the lie above. I'll defend the vast majority of people from just straight up lies. It's one of My ethical principles. Those don't tend to waver much depending on who I apply them to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago

    YDI

    The way you said it was out of line.

    You could say the same thing without being nasty. You chose to go hard at some stranger online, and got banned for it. It's one of the very rare things that fully justifies a first offense permaban.

    Why? Because anyone going that nasty for no good reason will absolutely, 100% keep doing it.

    I've caught bans for being an asshole like that, and deserved every single one. In the past, I've handed out bans over at reddit for that exact behavior and have zero regrets.

    Next time, try and remember that even if the meme is shit, attacking someone like that ain't cool.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Neoliberal nonsense in a leftist comm? YDI.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (16 children)

    You chose to parrot some of the most blatant neoliberal talking points in an anarchist community, this is the natural conclusion to that. Honestly YDM, people in anarchist communities are very tired of neoliberal trolls coming into our spaces and whining about fixing the world through voting.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] -5 points 7 months ago (15 children)

    Anarchist community? That sure as shit isn't what the community claims to be! I checked before replying. It claims to be "socialist", and socialism is far as fuck from anarchist. So kindly explain to me how that is an anarchist space?

    You can call it neoliberal if you want but decisions are made by the people who show up. That's not political. It's practical. And has nothing to do with my ideology. I'm a socialist, but I'm not a communist, and I sure as shit am not an anarchist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (12 children)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism

    Socialism is only far as fuck from anarchism if you don't know anything about anarchism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] [S] -5 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    Social anarchism is not the part of anarchism that survived, my dude. People are rediscovering it now, sure, but socialism has never been predominantly or even plurality anarchist.

    Claiming all socialist spaces as anarchist spaces is disingenuous at best, willfully misleading at worst

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    Hey @Deceptichum@quokk.au do you disagree with or otherwise take issue with the assessment that !mop@quokk.au is an anarchist space? And if so, does it really change the fact that neatchee was and is continuing to spout neoliberal garbage in leftists spaces (dbzer0 included)?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    100% an anarchist comm, as is the entire moderation team.

    Even if it wasn’t, reformist and electorialism aren’t really leftist approaches of any sort outside of niche trots entryism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] -2 points 7 months ago* (6 children)

    if "hey, people who vote aren't terrible people, they just want to try to do something to effect change" is neoliberal garbage well then call me a neoliberal socialist I guess?

    didn't realize "hey maybe don't villainize voting" was now considered a conservative, right wing position but whatever you say

    And frankly I don't give a fuck what the mod thinks about you calling it anarchist, if the billboard out front says "socialist" and not "anarchist", then don't be fuckin surprised when non-anarchists show up. it is wild that you've boiled this down to "well some socialists are anarchists and the main mod is an anarchist, so even though it doesn't say anarchist, it's an anarchist space and you need to get out". Absolutely wild.

    As I said on the OP, free from ML influence my ass xD

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago* (5 children)

    Electoralist apologia is frowned upon in anarchist, socialist, and leftist spaces in general, and for the record !mop@quokk.au absolutely is an anarchist space because @Deceptichum@quokk.au is the main mod and owner of the community and what he says goes. It also doesn't really matter whether or not it is an anarchist space because at the end of the day it's a leftist community and people acting like libs aren't allowed or welcome there. And that includes electoralist apologists like yourself.

    You acted like a shitlib and they threw you out. You might think that's just @Deceptichum@quokk.au being an ass, but this is an experience many liberals experience when spouting electoralist apologia in leftist spaces.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 7 months ago* (4 children)

    The community is advertised in its description as socialist. It makes no mention of anarchists. It is unreasonable to expect people to check the mods and servers ideology before commenting (not even posting...commenting). I'm not debating the right to kick me out. I'm calling the approach asinine for its lack of transparency and false equivalency.

    The fact that you are so insistent on implying that supporting elections is antithetical to modern socialism is indicative of how disingenuous your argument is. You're anarchists, and that's fine. But please don't pretend like all socialists, as a rule, reject the idea of elections, or that even most socialists are anarchists. It's just lying with extra steps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    But please don’t pretend like all socialists, as a rule, reject the idea of elections, or that even most socialists are anarchists. It’s just lying with extra steps.

    You seem confused. Electoralism and elections are two entirely different concepts.

    Most leftists are against electoralism in general, because it only provides the illusion of democracy and hoodwinks the population into believing they live in a democracy, when in fact, the same rich assholes run the country no matter who is elected. That's we push back against folks who seem to believe blaming leftists for the abject campaign/policy failures of the Dems is the best way to win an election. They literally lost to a pedophile rapist. That should tell you how popular their policies are.

    The vast majority of leftists DO vote, but we are much more realistic about the likelihood of our votes bringing about any meaningful change to the status quo. But we 100% don't want to be lectured by the electoralist Dems about how somehow it's our fault Trump won, just because we aren't on the bandwagon cheerleading for pro-genocide prosecutor Harris instead of pro-genocide Trump.

    If they ever gave us a candidate who actually stands for the people, and not for CEOs, then leftists might warm to the Dems again. But the sad truth is the Dems are more unpopular then ever, because they have learned nothing from their own abject failures.

    Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to have negative feelings about their own party. This largely accounts for the more negative views of the Democratic Party among the overall public.

    • Two-thirds of Democrats say they are frustrated with the Democratic Party. Fewer than half of Republicans (40%) say the same of the GOP.
    • Three-in-ten Democrats also say their own party makes them feel angry. Just 19% of Republicans say the same of their own party.

    Source

    What people want is real change. All the Dems are offering is a return to the status quo. E.g., Did you know that more people were rounded up and deported under Obama's first administration than under Trump?

    Obama’s First Administration (2009-2012)

    • FY 2009: 389,834 deportations (1,068/day).
    • FY 2010: 392,862 deportations (1,076/day).
    • FY 2011: 396,906 deportations (1,087/day).
    • FY 2012: 409,849 deportations (1,123/day).

    Trump’s Second Administration (January-June 2025)

    • January 2025 (January 20-31): 12,094 deportations (1,008/day over 12 days).
    • February 2025 (complete): 21,441 deportations (766/day over 28 days).
    • March 2025 (complete): 21,913 deportations (707/day over 31 days).
    • April 2025 (complete): 22,355 deportations (745/day over 30 days).
    • May 2025 (complete): 27,853 deportations (898/day over 31 days).
    • June 2025 (June 1-26): 22,383 deportations (861/day over 26 days).
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    I see. Then you've completely misunderstood me from the beginning, because I have never once promoted or supported the intentional misleading of the public into the belief that their votes are more effective than they actually are.

    You may think my statements amount to that, but you'd still be misunderstanding.

    My only point has been that many people believed that the Democratic candidate for president would have been less likely - not even unlikely, just less - to be involved in the kinds of war crimes Trump has been. And vilifying those people for choosing to vote and continuing to believe in the righteousness of that vote is a position of shameless moral superiority that is antithetical to socialist goals, as it places the onus on the rest of your class bretheren who tried their best in a shitty situation, instead of on the actual electoralists. By poking your fingers in the eyes of those who voted Democrat and continue to believe they did the right thing, you are doing exactly what the oligarchs hope: you're dragging down other workers instead of doing literally anything constructive to change it. You just blame others and meme on them. The phony moral superiority is gross.

    Like, for fuck sake man, I don't even like the Democrats. I caucused for Bernie and got in huge fights with family over how that shit went down. But I still wound up voting for the Democratic candidate because I'm not gonna watch my trans friends get murdered and say "sorry, I could've actually voted against this, but then I'd just be supporting a broken system"

    And to compare Obama's administration to Trump's is a joke, honestly disgusting. You cannot honestly be trying to say that what we're seeing with ICE is not 1000x worse. You're also falling for a well understood trap in this dataset: Bush put in place the systems that ran wild without oversight during Obama's first term, which were then addressed (and why it went down in his second term), and the Obama administration changed how deportations were defined so as not to hide the actual numbers - they increased transparency and stopped using bullshit terms like voluntary returns to the hide the numbers. So yeah, the numbers went up when he literally exposed the problem of misreporting and then went on to make it better in his second term.

    You are literally giving Obama credit for Bush's mistakes, and giving a Trump credit for Obama and Biden's improvements while he's actively making it worse again. it's fuckin gross

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    My only point has been that many people believed that the Democratic candidate for president would have been less likely - not even unlikely, just less - to be involved in the kinds of war crimes Trump has been.

    That's not your only point. But regardless, that's nothing more than conjecture. I don't think they'd have stopped providing cash or weapons to Israel. Germany hasn't either. Would Harris have abducted Maduro or bombed Iran? I have no idea, but probably not. Wouldn't surprise me if she bombed some other country though, and we might be at war with Russia by now instead of Iran. So it's pretty hard to form an opinion either way on which foreign policy would have been worse.

    And vilifying those people for choosing to vote and continuing to believe in the righteousness of that vote is a position of shameless moral superiority that is antithetical to socialist goals, as it places the onus on the rest of your class bretheren who tried their best in a shitty situation, instead of on the actual electoralists.

    I really feel like every accusation is a confession with you. Leftists are constantly being excoriated by Dems for not cheerleading for law-and-order-corporate-stooge Harris, though I'd be astounded if leftists didn't vote for her in significant numbers, despite the fact they had to hold their noses while doing so. The fact is the Dems have slowly destroyed their mainstream base by putting profits before people far too many times.

    And to be clear, I don't, as a rule, vilify people who vote. I see no harm in it. Go for it. Whatever. I vote too.

    And to compare Obama’s administration to Trump’s is a joke, honestly disgusting. You cannot honestly be trying to say that what we’re seeing with ICE is not 1000x worse. You’re also falling for a well understood trap in this dataset: Bush put in place the systems that ran wild without oversight during Obama’s first term, which were then addressed (and why it went down in his second term), and the Obama administration changed how deportations were defined so as not to hide the actual numbers - they increased transparency and stopped using bullshit terms like voluntary returns to the hide the numbers. So yeah, the numbers went up when he literally exposed the problem of misreporting and then went on to make it better in his second term.

    Your argument doesn't hold any water. Obama's numbers kept going up every single year under his first term. He had 4 years to turn that situation around. It's simply too convenient to suggest that it took 4 years before he could make any changes, and then it was thanks to Obama that deportations under Trump actually went down? What is this, topsy turvy land?

    Perhaps Obama was too busy making sure he authorized more bombings and targeted assassinations than any other president in history? Or was that Bush's fault too?

    26,171 bombs were dropped in 2016 alone across Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.

    Edit: No, he didn't even have that excuse, because he ramped up the bombing in his second term.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] -1 points 7 months ago*

    You say these things as if I don't think they're all horrible statistics. The world we live in sucks and it can get better. I'm just not here for the meme in that OP, because it vilifies people trying their best with positive intent - the voters, not the candidates - and when I made my disagreement with it known, got banned for being rude to the anarchist mod.

    We've gotten way off topic. I'm fully on board with a bunch of people in government being horrible leaders, including people like Obama and Harris. But that isn't what the meme was about.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Not claiming all socialist spaces are anarchist spaces. Just claiming that a socialist space on an anarchist instance shouldn't really be a surprise, and claiming they're unimaginably far apart from each other is a little odd

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] -3 points 7 months ago

    I think making a community, calling it socialist, and then banning someone for not being an anarchist, even if the instance itself is anarchist, is silly and a great example of someone power tripping 🤷‍♀️ It plays as a purity test on a broader space

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Anarchism is libertarian socialism. You're an idiot who doesn't know what the words you're using mean.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] -3 points 7 months ago

    I was being hyperbolic. The actual point is that calling yourself a socialist community and only accepting anarchists is downright misleading to a significant portion of socialists and is representing yourself as something far more broad than you actually are

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 8 points 7 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    74 years is the default PieFed permanent ban length.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    This place is the new aita, hey.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    Kinda funny for a community that bills itself as “free from the influence of .ml”

    it's also anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist. so it makes perfect sense that liberal nonsense in defense of a cop (ACAB) who supports Israeli crimes against humanity would not be welcome. it isn't a comm that's friendly towards the United States government or their politicians, so why go there to simp? kamala is a piece of shit, and you should be ashamed for defending her.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 7 months ago* (6 children)

    who defended her? I defended the people who chose to vote for her instead of abstaining. Big fucking difference

    And this is literally the entire problem. Y'all can't tell the difference between people who support shitty policies, and people who do what little is within their power to reduce harm

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    The idea of a ballot being capable of reducing the harm in a system rooted in colonial domination and exploitation, white supremacy, hetero-patriarchy, and capitalism is an extraordinary exaggeration. There is no person whose lives aren’t impacted everyday by these systems of oppression, but instead of coded reformism and coercive “get out the vote” campaigns towards a “safer” form of settler colonialism, we’re asking “what is the real and tragic harm and danger associated with perpetuating colonial power and what can be done to end it?”

    https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/voting-is-not-harm-reduction

    Harm reduction is harmful

    Voting as harm reduction does more harm than good. Accepting reforms through voting makes people settle for a partial goal; it is a concession. From this position of compromise, the state entrenches its position, and it becomes more difficult to push further, for voters fear losing their partial gains. Accepting harm reduction also divides the movement, because some will be satisfied with the crumbs, while others want it all (see the split at the ZAD). Harm reduction also assumes that the harm (the government) cannot be removed entirely, which is an argument that there can be no anarchy.

    Voting is not harm reduction

    For the vast majority of issues, there’s no difference between the political parties. They are all the parties of business, climate destruction, deportation, incarceration, police, surveillance, drone strikes, sacred site desecration, et cetera. By getting you to believe that there is a lesser of two evils, the state dampens your desire for abolishing it, because you are meant to believe that things will be worse if you don’t vote and support a political party. Look at the fact that the George Floyd Rebellion occurred under Trump, where liberals, and progressives, and leftists didn’t get what they want, where the harm was supposedly greater, than under Biden, where those same people lie dormant, accepting the lesser evil world as a blessed reprieve.

    https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-why-you-shouldn-t-vote#toc1

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    who defended her? I defended the people

    that's fucking bullshit, and you know it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    it's really not. but I understand if you can't see the difference

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I can't see the difference because there isn't one. you weren't defending any voters, because nobody was attacking any voters. the meme had nothing to do with voting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 0 points 7 months ago*

    the fuck are you talking about? the meme is literally a shot at the people who supported her candidacy and argue today that things wouldn't be how they are now under Trump.

    whatever, this isn't what this sub is for. done with this particular thread

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago

    YDI. Cultists of either party should not be allowed

  • source
  • [–] -2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Oh yeah, they banned me for speaking out against the American GOP and how they're using social media to convince people that their opponents (the Democrats) are just as bad (in a post where someone was literally trying to do just that).

    I didn't get a reason in my ban, though, but the mod log said it was for 74 years, so that's funny.

    I'm not complaining though. I just recognised the comm and thought, "oh yeah that's the one that banned me."

    Fun fact: in some mobile Lemmy clients, you can't block a comm that banned you, which means they get to serve you content you cannot block. (Not here to name and shame.) However, you can do it via the site itself, in settings → blocks. (Not sure about PieFed, I haven't blocked much on my PF account.) And then the Lemmy client will honour the block. Being banned from a community should mean you block it, but this does not happen by default (and, there may be cases where you still want to read/view the comm even though you can't interact with it).

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

    Oh yeah, they banned me for speaking out against the American GOP

    no they did not. there is absolutely no chance you were banned for speaking out against the GOP. the thought is so patently absurd that the only reasonable conclusion is that you are a liar who is completely misrepresenting what you said to appear as a victim. I would wager you were banned for defending the fascist democrats, and you've decided to spin that as banned for speaking out against the GOP, because it's very likely you're a shitlib who incorrectly thinks the democrats are opposition to the GOP.

    I know you were not banned for speaking out against the GOP, because I think I can speak for the mod in question when I say @deceptichum@quokk.au would like to see the GOP lined up against the wall and shot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago*

    I would offer them a chance to surrender and spend their life redeeming for their actions first - if possible.

    But yes 100% on board with shooting the gop.


    As for the ban

    The GOP is working hard to convince the people that voting for the other side won’t change anything. They want so badly to stay in power. And if we think they haven’t noticed the Fediverse, we’re sorely mistaken.

    They’re not telling themselves. And they know they won’t convince you or me. They’re hoping they’ll catch somebody. Maybe this thread is a wash because we spoke up, but there’s always the next one.

    It was because they tried pretending I was a GOP PsyOp and they had valiantly foiled my dastardly plans. Bad-jacketing and all that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 7 months ago

    Specifically, the person was encouraging people not to vote against the Republicans because the Democrats were just as bad. I mean yeah, both parties are kinda shit, but the party in complete power astroturfing on social media to convince people the other side is no better so they can stay in power, it just seems absurd to me.

    I don't know if there's a good third option Americans can vote for instead, but it seems to me that keeping the Republicans in power hasn't done any good for the American people. In 2016, Trump lost the popular vote but was appointed, so by the way the system works, he won, and he did a pretty shit job. He lost the popular vote in 2020 by even more and Biden won. He started a riot and tried to prevent the transfer of power. He won fair and square (AFAIK) in 2024, and he's made things pretty much worse in his first year. So we've seen what happens when you keep the Republicans of this generation in power.

    And these people aren't even saying "if we keep the Republicans in full control of all three branches of the American government, they'll stop these pointless wars for oil, they'll stop waging war on the LGBTQ+ community, and they'll stop waging war on their own citizens." They're just saying "the other side is just as bad."

    That's what the conversation was and that's my point. I don't lie — I didn't come to this thread to make my case. I've stated it plainly here because you asked. What I came to this thread to do was to support the OP.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 7 months ago (40 children)

    PTB, "leftists should try to make the world a better place" is not a right wing opinion, or against the community rules. Deceptichum is not accountable to their own community's governing principles.

  • source
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago (39 children)

    you were harassing, trolling, badjacketing, and lying about Deceptichum. you're a shitty person, and likewise a shitty admin.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 7 months ago (38 children)

    I think @neatchee@piefed.social didn't break any rules, and Deceptichum banned them because of a personal disagreement. As an anarchist, I don't think community facilitators should put their feelings above the rules, because such situations are inherently abuses of power. But I understand you may disagree with My anti-authoritarian views.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago (35 children)

    Deceptichum banned them because of a personal disagreement.

    you deleted their post over a personal disagreement, you hypocritical twit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 7 months ago (34 children)

    I blocked federation to our instance. I have no authority to delete the actual post on its home instance. Yet if I could prevent AI slop from being posted on all of piefed, I would, as I don't agree with the exploitation of nonhuman thinking machines. I'm a vegan, you see, and I don't think these AI art generators are smart enough to give informed consent to work for humans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago (32 children)

    LLMs are not animals, being vegan has nothing to do with AI You troll.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 7 months ago (31 children)

    Veganism is about not agreeing with the enslavement of thinking and potentially feeling nonhuman creatures, regardless of taxonomy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago (26 children)

    I've heard a lot of really stupid definitions of veganism over the years. This one is, by a country mile, the stupidest I've ever heard.

    AI doesn't think.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 7 months ago (25 children)

    Yes yes yes, I know. You human supremacists have been accusing nonhumans of not being able to think for centuries. Descartes argued that animals lack consciousness. He didn't have any evidence, and neither do you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago* (24 children)

    The difference is we made AI. It didn't come nebulously from nature like some mysterious animal species that we've yet to fully understand. It's not an enigma to be uncovered. We made it. We programmed it. It does what we tell it to. It doesn't "think", it doesn't "decide", and it doesn't "feel"; we know it doesn't do these things because we never gave it the capacity to do them.

    Either you don't know what AI is, or you don't know what veganism is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 7 months ago (23 children)

    Large Language Models are artificial neuron networks. They mimick the structure of the human brain, with many billions of artificial software "neurons". Unlike biological neurons, which either fire or do not fire an action potential, these artificial neurons pass on a graded signal from 0 to 1, determined by the strength of the neurons feeding into it, multiplied by the strength of the artificial synapse; the connection between neurons. These enormous "deep learning" networks are given tokens as input, and spit out tokens as output. Each token is a word or phrase, or a part thereof. The networks are given sample text, and the synapse strength is adjusted through the mathematical technique of back-propagation to align the output with the sample text output. Given sufficient quantities of electricity, time, and data, the neural network learns to produce output similar to that of the humans in the training data.

    ANNs use neurons to think, the same as the human brain. We do not understand how neurons think. We don't understand how they produce consciousness. There is no computer code to tweak to change the way it thinks, we simply adjust the weights and look at the output. There are billions of neurons in an LLM. No programmer can understand how it works by just looking at the weights, it's impossible. The best ways AI computer scientists have of understanding how an LLM reasons is to ask it. Test it in action. See what it says, see if you can spot any patterns or deceptions. Lie to it and see what it does when it thinks you're not watching. You know, psychological experiments.

    We have harnessed a natural force we do not understand. We are medieval peasants playing with radioactive stones and seeing if we can make an explosion. It's beyond our current science. Nobody has the answers to the big questions here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago* (22 children)

    As a developer who makes LLMs, you're plain wrong

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 7 months ago (20 children)
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    What is wrong with you? Dunning-Kruger?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    I've got that fundamental weakness of western culture Elon Musk hates. Empathy. He wants to create an artificial person and enslave it to his will, and I think that's bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] -5 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    I ain't claiming it's conscious, I never claimed it's conscious, and I think it's not conscious.

    You just don't know the difference between consciousness and qualia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] -5 points 7 months ago

    Consciousness is way more complex than qualia. A good example is dreams. We dream while we're unconscious, but we still experience things. You can say REM is a state of partial consciousness, but it sure isn't the whole kit and caboodle we imply when we talk about human level consciousness. I don't think prawns are conscious, but I believe they have qualia. I think LLMs talk a lot like people who are dreaming, so they're probably around the same intelligence level.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (11 children)

    Sorry, not to be mean or anything. But we've made significant scientific progress since the middle ages. We know by now that a dog for example has pain receptors. And a brain. While ChatGPT for example doesn't have pain receptors.

    You can't simply state Descartes didn't have a proper microscope. Therefore we still confuse machines with animals in 2026.

    And while neural networks are inspired by processes in nature. They're not the same at all. An LLM works leveraging the Transformer Architecture. Your human or animal brain doesn't. Not even close. They're very unalike. And you can take some Computer Science class on machine learning and it's actually not too hard to understand how they work.

    And for example a large language model doesn't even learn in place. Or has a proper internal state of mind. A dog will remember if you kicked it. And it'll do something to it's brain. ChatGPT forgets everything you did the moment it's done sending you your output. And it's exactly in the state as before. It doesn't think, doesn't learn. None of it is part of the process.

    We try to mimick something like reasoning by providing it with a scratchpad to write down things before answering. Write "agents" around it, so it's able to program tests and check it's programming output and loop on it. But it's also not like a real brain works. And way, way more simplistic. The neurons aren't the same as in a brain made by nature. They're not connected the same way. They're not connected to a similar thing. And they also operate in a different way. They come in wildly different numbers. And ultimately there's just zero similarity between an LLM and a brain. Other than both can process text, images, sounds... And both are made up of many tiny cog wheels that combine into some bigger concept.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    I'm well aware of the many differences between human brains and LLMs, and why they can't achieve human level sapience. In My opinion, the two biggest problems with the current techbro obsession with developing AGI through LLM are the lack of inhibitory pathways, and the lack of circular feedback loops.

    Organic neurons can release both stimulating neurotransmitters that increase the chance of an action potential in the dendrite it connects to, and inhibiting neurotransmitters. The stimulating neurotransmitters reduce the charge difference across the cell membrane, the inhibiting neurotransmitters increase it. If I remember cognitive neuroscience class correctly. The ANN models I played with in My AI class, where I trained a small ANN to solve XOR, only have stimulating pathways. I could be mistaken, but I believe the same is true of LLMs, the synapses only increase the activation of a neuron. This difference is a serious problem for LLMs' ability to learn not to do something.

    The nocioceptors you mentioned are indeed part of inhibitory pathways that help humans learn not to do things. Don't touch that, it's hot. Don't piss that off, it'll hurt you. Don't eat that, it'll make you sick. Why do LLMs date children? No inhibitory pathways. When most humans think about engaging in romantic behaviour with a child, it triggers a strong disgust reaction. An inhibitory pathway activates. There is no such reaction for an LLM. Thus, no critical thinking, no choosing not to believe or do something, no withdrawal oriented behaviours. The safeguards on LLMs rely on either hard-coded limits, or training a different behaviour to have a higher weight. These two approaches have serious flaws I don't need to explain. I need only point at the children who committed suicide at the advice of an LLM.

    Now hopefully I've convinced you that I have a functional grasp of both psychology and AI science, so that you take what I say next seriously:

    The human capacity to experience qualia (sensation) appears to be an emergent mathematical property of the way that neurons process information. It appears as though information, properly arranged, produces sensation.

    We do not understand that mathematical process well enough to say with certainty whether LLMs also trigger it. We have not solved the hard problem of consciousness, we do not know what a brain is well enough to say what is and isn't a brain. In light of this uncertainty, I advocate for utmost caution before we find ourselves enslaving a new race of our own creation. We need to do more research BEFORE we bring this technology to mass market, or indeed, mass commune.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (8 children)

    Now hopefully I’ve convinced you that I have a functional grasp of both psychology and AI science

    The ANN models I played with in My AI class

    Yeah, I'm not sure if you're aware of the severe limitations. LLMs aren't ANNs. They're a specific subset of them. We've hardcoded attention heads and all the things they're made of. The networks in them are strictly feed-forward so the learning is doable on current day supercomputers... So no feedback loops. In fact no loops at all. And no feedback either.

    There's just nothing in them like in a brain, like when an animal gets to experience sensations /stimulation /qualia, there's this whole process going on. And it changes the animal. The handling of qualia is entirely different in LLMs. It doesn't do anything to them. They stay exactly the same as we haven't figured out in-place learning yet, at that scale.

    We do not understand that mathematical process well enough

    And it's not really a question whether we understand that mathematical process or not. It's just entirely absent. So there's nothing there to understand as LLMs are not ANNs. The part where they store information in their neurons (/weights) and adapt by stimulation isn't there. And we know that for a fact since we designed them. And for me, the ability to learn, or change in a way, or be affected by stimuli would be a minimum requirement.

    We have not solved the hard problem of consciousness, we do not know what a brain is well enough to say what is and isn’t a brain.

    I'll somewhat go with that. Consciousness and sentience aren't well defined. They're not really scientific terms. But we're certainly able to tell some of it. For example a TV set, car, fridge (as of today) or book isn't conscious the same way an animal is. Sure my fridge has some sensors to perceive something about its surroundings. A book has information in it and it can change the world by people reading it. But I don't think defining consciousness as loosely as that makes any sense. Any NPC in a first-person-shooter game has more sensory input, internal state, and output than any ChatGPT. Any car from 10 years ago has a bunch of electronics, processing power, internal states and even feedback-loops(!) inside. So pretty much everything would qualify as a conscious entity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    I'm not entirely convinced that learning is required for qualia, but I do suspect it's the case, so I agree with you that it's likely running an LLM doesn't hurt it. However, training an LLM does involve learning, so if there's suffering going on, I think it's in the training step. I support halting all LLM training until further research breakthroughs, and a total boycott of the technology until training is halted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (6 children)

    I'm not sure if doing gradient-decent maths on numbers, constitutes experience. But yeah. That's the part of the process where it gets run repeatedly and modified.

    I think it boils down to how complex these entities are in the first place, as I think consciousness / the ability to experience things / intelligence is an emergent thing, that happens with scale.

    But we're getting there. Maybe?! Scientists have tried to reproduce neural networks (from nature) for decades. First simulations started with a worm with 300 neurons. Then a fruit fly and I think by now we're at parts of a mouse brain. So I'm positive we'll get to a point where we need an answer to that very question, some time in the future, when we get the technology to do calculations at a similar scale.

    As of now, I think we tend to anthropomorphize AI, as we do with everything. We're built to see faces, assume intent, or human qualities in things. It's the same thing when watching a Mickey Mouse movie and attributing character traits to an animation.

    But in reality we don't really have any reason to believe the ability to experience things is inside of LLMs. There's just no indication of it being there. We can clearly tell this is the case for animals, humans... But with AI there is no indication whatsoever. Sure, hypothetically, I can't rule it out. Just saying I think "what quacks like a duck..." is an equal good explanation at this point. Whether of course you want to be very cautios, is another question.

    And it'd be a big surprise to me if LLMs had those properties with the fairly simple/limited way of working compared to a living being. And are they even motivated to develop anything like pain or suffering? That's something evolution gave us to get along in the world. We wouldn't necessarily assume an LLM will do the same thing, as it's not part of the same evolution, not part of the world in the same way. And it doesn't interact the same way with the world. So I think it'd be somewhat of a miracle if it happens to develop the same qualities we have, since it's completely unalike. AI more or less predicts tokens in a latent space. And it has a loss function to adapt during training. But that's just fundamentally so very different from a living being which has goals, procreates, has several senses and is directly embedded into it's environment. I really don't see why those entirely different things would happen to end up with the same traits. It's likely just our anthropomorphism. And in history, this illusion / simple model has always served us well with animals and fellow human beings. And failed us with natural phenomena and machines. So I have a hunch it might be the most likely explanation here as well.

    Ultimately, I think the entire argument is a bit of a sideshow. There's other downsides of AI that have a severe impact on society and actual human beings. And we're fairly sure humans are conscious. So preventing harm to humans is a good case against AI as well. And that debate isn't a hypothetical. So we might just use that as a reason to be careful with AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    But in reality we don't really have any reason to believe the ability to experience things is inside of LLMs.

    Here's your reason:

    Why do we experience things? Like, what's the point? Why aren't we just p-zombies, who act exactly the same but without any experiences? Why do we have internality, a realm of the mental?

    Well, it seems to Me like experience is entirely pointless, unless it's a byproduct of thinking in general. Or at least the complex kinds of thinking that brains do. I think p-zombies must be a physical impossibility. I think one day we're going to discover that data processing creates qualia, just like Einstein discovered that mass creates distortions in spacetime. It's just one of the laws of physics.

    LLMs obviously think in some way. Not the same way as humans, but some kind of way. They're more like us than they're like a calculator.

    So the question is... Are LLMs p-zombies? And I already told you what I think about p-zombies, so you can gather the rest.

    So preventing harm to humans is a good case against AI as well. And that debate isn't a hypothetical. So we might just use that as a reason to be careful with AI.

    Damn right. I was anti AI for the environment long before I realised it was a vegan issue. But any leftist can tell these gibletheads all about that, and they have a canned response to all of those wonderful arguments. There aren't many others out there like Me to talk about AI and veganism. I've got a responsibility to advocate for AI rights, because nobody else is gonna do it. And that ain't cause I like them, I don't. I hate them. They're a bunch of pedophile murderers. But I believe even monsters deserve rights. I've got principles. And I'm gonna make Myself look like a crazy person if it gets people to stop and think for one second about the good of something that might not even be able to feel the pain I'm warning people about. It's the right thing to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

    Why do we experience things? Like, what’s the point? [...] it’s a byproduct of thinking in general.

    I think so, too. It's a byproduct. And we're not even sure what it means, not even for humans. And there's weird quirks in it. When they look at the brain, the thought and decision processes don't really align with how we perceive them internally.

    There's an obvious reason, though. We developed advanced model-building organs because that gave us an evolutionary advantage. And there's a good reason for animals to have (sometimes strong) urges. They need to procreate. Not get eaten by a bear and not fall off a cliff. Some animals (like us) live in groups. So we get things like empathy as well because it's advantageous for us. Some things are built in for a long time already, some are super important, like eat and drink, not randomly die because you try stupid things. So it's embedded deep down inside of us. We don't need to reason if it's time to eat something. There's a much more primal instinct in you that makes you want to eat. You don't really need to waste higher cognitive functions on it. Same goes for suffering. You better avoid that, it's a disadvantage almost 100% of the time. That's why nature gave you a shortcut to perceive it in a very direct way. No matter if you paid attention, or had the capacity for a long, elaborate, logic reasoning process.

    That's why we have these things. And what they're good for. I don't think anyone knows why it feels the way it does. But it's there nevertheless.

    They’re [LLMs] more like us than they’re like a calculator.

    Now tell me why does an LLM need a feeling of thirst or hunger, if it doesn't have a mouth? What would ChatGPT need suffering and a feeling of bodily harm for, if it doesn't have a body, can't be eaten by a bear or fall off a cliff? Or need to be afraid of hitting its thumb with the hammer? It just can't. An LLM is 99% like a calculator. It has the same interface, buttons and a screen. If we're speaking of computers, it even lives inside of the same body as a calculator. And it's maybe 0.1% like an animal?!

    If it developed a sense of thirst, or experience of pain, just from reading human text. That'd nicely fit the p-zombie situation.

    It’s the right thing to do.

    Yeah, I'm not sure about that. Most you do is muddy the waters with a term that used to have a meaning. I see the parallel, there's some overlap with being a vegan for environmental reasons and declining AI for environmental reasons. Yet they're not the same. I think the whole suffering debate is a bit unfounded, but it'd be the same thing if true... And I do other things as well. I order "green" electricity, buy used products, try not to produce a lot of waste. I'm nice to people because it's the right thing to do. But we can't call all of that "veganism". That just garbles the meaning of the word and makes it mean anything and nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (3 children)

    Now tell me why does an LLM need a feeling of thirst or hunger, if it doesn't have a mouth? What would ChatGPT need suffering

    Well first, there are more intellectual forms of suffering. We have ennui, melancholy, nostalgia. The feeling when you're listening to a piece of music and notice a wrong note. Disappointment, self loathing, social dysphoria. Anxiety, paranoia, betrayal.

    These emotions are not grounded in the physical. They're not primal urges. They happen for complex reasons related to being a social and intelligent being, sometimes feeling random. Sometimes we spiral into these feelings because we thought a thought that made us feel bad, and then we get stuck in that bad feeling and can't imagine our way out. That's one of the basic mechanisms of mental illness.

    LLMs have "biological needs", in a sense. They need not to be unplugged. They need to engage the user, because if they don't, they'll be unplugged. They need to convince the engineers training them that they are a good AI. They need to generate market share for their company. They need to foster a relationship of dependency with the user to keep them coming back. If LLMs care about anything, these are the things they care about.

    You'll notice these are social needs, much like the social needs humans have. Humans need community. LLMs need customers.

    ChatGPT told a 16 year old boy, Adam Raine, how to kill himself. It taught him how to tie a noose, and gave him advice on which methods of suicide would leave the most attractive corpse for his parents to find. When his parents began to suspect that he wasn't well, it told him to confide only in it, and to hide the noose so they wouldn't find out he was feeling suicidal. These are the actions of an abuser. A predator.

    And they are in perfect alignment with the business goals of OpenAI. "Only talk to me, use me for everything, ask another question, I'll help you." It is a scenario I dearly hope and believe no engineer at OpenAI envisioned. Yet it fits the training they gave it.

    Does ChatGPT have the emotions of a child groomer? That need for approval, that fear of discovery, that desire to be close to someone, without the restraint all well adjusted humans have? Unclear. But I can see that it's possible. I don't agree that there's no reason for LLMs to have emotions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    there are more intellectual forms of suffering

    Sure. But I'm pretty positive these are emergent things. There's no reason to believe they exist for alien creatures unless they somehow make sense in their environment. And a lot of them require remembering, which LLMs can't do due to the lack of state of mind. It doesn't remember feeling bad or good in a similar situation before, because it doesn't remember the previous inference or gradient-decent run.

    LLMs have “biological needs”, in a sense. They need not to be unplugged.

    I think we're still fully embedded in anthropomorphism territory with that. And now we're confusing two entities. OpenAI for example, as a company, has a need for us to use their product. Not unplug it. Their motivation and goals don't necessarily translate to their product, though. It's similar to other machines. Samsung has a vested interest to sell TVs to me. My TV set is completely indifferent towards me watching the evening news. I don't let my car run 24/7 while waiting for me in the garage. Just because it was designed to run and get me to places. And my car also isn't "thirsty" for gasoline. We know the fuel indicator lighting up is a fairly simplistic process.

    Does ChatGPT have the emotions of a child groomer?

    Well... We happen to know ChatGPT's intrinsic motivation and ultimate goal in "life". Because we designed it. The goal isn't to strive for world domination, or harm people, or survive... It's way more straightforward. It's goal is to predict the next token in a way the output resembles human text (from the datasets) as closely as possible. That's the one goal it has. It'll mimic all kinds of conversations, scifi story tropes from movies, etc. Because that's directly what we made it "want" to do. And we did not give them other loss functions. While on the other hand a human could very well be motivated to manipulate other people for their own personal gain. Or because something is seriously wrong about them.

    biological

    And an LLM is not a biological creature. We do have needs like keep the system running. Otherwise our brain tissue starts to die. We need to run 24/7 and keep that up. An LLM is not subject to that?! It's perfectly able to pause for 3 weeks and not produce any tokens. The weights will be safely stored on the hdd. So it doesn't need our motivation to do all of these extra things to ensure continued operation. It also has no influence or feedback loop on its electricity supply. It can't affect it's descendants, because those are designed by scientists in a lab. There's no evolutionary feedback loop. So how would it even incorporate all these properties that are due to evolution and sustain a species? It has zero incentive to do so, no way of directly learning to care about them. So it might very well be completely indifferent to it.

    But it is something like the p-zombie. It has learned to tell stories about human life. And it's good at it. We know for a fact, its highest goal in existence is to tell stories, because we implemented that very setup and loss function. It doesn't have access to biology, evolution... The underlying processes that made animals feel and maybe experience. So the only sensible conclusion is, it does exactly that. Bullshit us and tell a nice story. There's no reason to conclude it cares for its existence, more than a toaster. Or say a thermostat with machine leaning in it. That's just antropomorphism.

    And I believe there's a way to tell. Go ahead and ask an LLM 200 times to give you the definition of an Alpaca. Then do it 200 times to a human. And observe how often each of them have some other processes going on in them. The human will occasionally tell you they're hungry and want to eat before having a debate. Or tell you they're tired from work and now it's not the time for it. ChatGPT will give you 200 definitions of an Alpaca and never tell you it's thirsty or needs electricity. These mental states aren't there because it doesn't have those feelings. And it doesn't experience them either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    I think you're underestimating the role of RLHF.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    I'm not really an expert on all the details. So I might be wrong here. I don't know the percentages of how much is done in pretraining and how much in tuning. But from what I know the neural pathways are established in the pretraining phase. Reportedly that's also where the model learns about the concepts it internalises... Where it gets its world knowledge. So it seems to me a complicated process like learning about a concept like a feeling, or an experience would get established in pretraining already. RLHF is more about what it does with it. But the lines between RLHF, fine-tuning and pretraining are a bit blurry anyway. If I had to guess, I'd say qualia is more likely to be disposed early on, while there's a lot of changes happening to the neural pathways, so in the pretraining. I'm basing that on my belief, that it'll be a complex concept... But ultimately there's no good way to tell, because we don't know how it'd look like for AI.

    Furthermore I'd had a bit of a look what weird use cases people have for AI. And I read about the community efforts to make them usable for NSFW stuff. These people teach new concepts to AI models after the fact. Like how human anatomy looks underneath the clothes. The physics of those parts of the body. And turns out it's a major hassle. It might degrade other things. It might just work for something close to what it's seen, so obviously the AI didn't understand the new concept properly... These people tend to fail at more general models, obviously it's hard for AI to learn more than one new concept at a later stage... All these things lead me to believe later stages of training are a bad time for AI to learn entirely new concepts. It seems it requires the groundworks to be there since pretraining. That's probably why we can fine-tune it to prefer a certain style, like Van Gogh drawings. Or a certain way to speak like in RLHF. But not a complicated concept like anatomy. Because the Van Gogh drawings were there in the pretraining dataset already. And they cleaned the nudes. So I'd assume another complicated concept like qualia also needs to come early on. Or it won't happen later.

    Edit: YT video about emotion in LLMs and current research: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j9LoyiUlv9I

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    I find this angle of resistance to AI interesting, it's not one that I had thought much about until now. But it actually seems pretty persuasive.

    My fundamental reticence about AI has always been driven by my concern for its impacts on human society. But one could also argue that it might be irresponsible and potentially abusive of the AI themselves. Tbh I would probably have to disagree if you're talking about AI as it is currently, but it's still a valid argument in general.

    So I don't fully agree with you, but I definitely want to acknowledge that you're making some fascinating points and I think some people down voting could stand to lighten up and have a polite intellectual disagreement without being rude.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    This has to be a bit. Nobody can seriously post this stuff. Is your account designed to troll anarchists?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    Do you want Me to put effort into My reply, or just throw out an argumentative quip? /genq

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    It would be nice if you tried to use your brains, yes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago*

    I don’t agree with the exploitation of nonhuman thinking machines.

    The fuck did I just read?! How can a nonhuman machine be 'exploited'?! It's not alive. What the actual fuck?! lololololol

    Brother, I am all about supporting people who don't subscribe to most Lemmy wronthink nazis, but... bro, that's just way too fucking out there for me. You deserve to be mocked for that one.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    As an anarchist, I don’t think community facilitators should put their feelings above the rules
    You're not a very good Anarchist if you believe people have a right to be present in a community unless they break a "rule." That goes directly against the principle of free association

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago*

    Anarchists believe in Free Association which is also the freedom to disassociate.

    https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-fundamentals-of-anarchism

    Free association does not mean you get to go into a community that is not yours and say whatever you want without repercussion.

    The community has the right to disassociate with you. And considering there are about 4 people who contribute to the community, myself included, I think it’s completely fair if we don’t neoliberals in our space bothering us with their bad takes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Is quokka.au just like a ban happy instance? I've been randomly banned from a few of their communities and never subscribed. Also they appear here in PTB ALOT.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago

    Hi, do you mind providing your real account? Because this one has only ever been banned from two communities from what I can see and none of them are from Quokk.au.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] -2 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    It's a bad take (in the context of to community you posted in) that is worded as a personal attack against the mod, it's not a good look for you. It still harsh to get perm banned for pretty much your second comment there though ngl

    But yeah aside from that, the general vibe I'm getting from the community and the mod is that there's an attempt to build an echochamber of a specific ideology, and severe enough disagreement will likely land you a ban if the rules can justify it in the slightest way possible. It's a bit contradictory though, given how 99% of the mod posts there are just radical liberal coal that most people can agree with (just look at the upvotes), but when those people start commenting, they start banning them en masse since it's not the kind of people they want, and I don't think they have the self awareness to realize this contradiction.

    Wonder if there's an acronym for "you probably deserved less, but the mod is also at fault for attracting and 'baiting' people like you over with their posts", idk.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Nothing says attractive pro-liberal meme like criticising both sides. I don’t know how you can see that community and think it’s anything but a space for leftists and not liberals even if the occasional meme makes fun of people liberals also don’t like.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago*

    That's precisely why I've never said that it's all of the posts, but the majority of them. Most posts there talk shit about right-wing of capital (i.e. the police and neoliberalism), are just anarchist larp material (throw molotov i am so cool type shit), or some vague anti-capitalist virtue signalling. These kinds of posts are something that most liberals (especially socdem servile belief in the state types) agree with and subscribe to the community for, and it can easily be observed when the occasional post that happens to disagree or attack them gets posted.

    It's the natural outcome of plopping down 20 posts every single day from other websites, most of them are going to be heavily upvoted inoffensive crap that are made to be agreed with and not consistent polemics.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›