Deleting and banning those who discuss tienamen square is pretty damning IMHO.
zbyte64
joined 7 months ago
Come on dude, I just mentioned Blahaj. Don't pretend only .world has a problem with .ml . And again, the two complaints of censorship raised by the two are not the same. The majority of communities wants moderation to at least attempt to be objective towards history.
And? I was over at Blahaj when this stuff went down so admittedly things played differently in different parts of the fediverse. Even so, the details of how things escalated should not distract from the behavior that is central to the conflict: ML engaging in censorship motivated by personal ideology instead of making an attempt to be objective.
Many other servers asked them to clean house but they refused, hence the defed. Wild how the ones deleting and banning users are the victims of censorship here 🙄
If I do, it’s uncodifiable
Things can still be codified and justified without an appeal to power. Lots of software is written that way today.
a clause that no one is allowed to use logical fallacies to defend it.
I don't understand why that would be a necessity or desired.
When I say antisocial behavior I'm not talking about ideology but historical actions like banning people posting literal facts about tiananmen or any other historical event. When responses fail to acknowledge actual history that is brought up, then it is likely working from a reactionary framework.
Is that why Hexbear and Lemmygrad were blocked? Hexbear being one of the largest and most active overtly trans-positive instances, and Lemmygrad being the largest explicitly Marxist Instance?
Blocked for being antisocial? Yes. If it was about being trans then Blahaj would have been blocked a long time ago.
If anything, I'm complaining about bad communist tropes dominating the media representation, and by that I mean leninists.
There's plenty of theory to draw from, like the Cynefin Framework or Wardley Mapping. But like the left, there's no real consensus on what we ought to be doing but no shortage of opinions.
That's bullshit; being communist isn't a free pass to be antisocial. History has an example of literal pedophiles organizing under the banner of communism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_90/The_Greens#:~:text=Until%201987%2C%20the%20Greens%20included,dealing%20with%20child%20sexual%20abuse.
Sure, but is that how we talk about our institutions? Things I hear that buck anarchism while supporting American democracy:
- The Constitution should be interpreted with "originalism" or at the very least venerated
- Police sacrifice X, therefore it's okay if they do extralegal Y
I'm not saying there aren't systems of accountability that legitimize various institutions. It's that the stories we tell to legitimize an institution comes in many different flavors, and those based on authority from power/position (ie "our founding fathers were smart people") are not accepted by anarchists. Edit: Imagine how different our legal framework would be if it reflected that mentality?
I find it a bit ironic that cars and traffic lights are being used as a metaphor for why anarchy won't work. Let's put aside that the example is of poor collective planning to build urban environments. Go to Vietnam and see how people drive without traffic lights, it's complete madness. But it works, and in some ways it works better than what we have because the accidents are fewer and less severe while also serving more diverse modes of traffic.
If the discussion is about how a government that massacres its own people and censors even searches of it is bad, then no, rectifying that difference in number doesn't make the objection go away.