Pug Jesus summarized it well enough. I didn’t think I’d have a stronger stance on it, but I am strongly in favor of defederating. I also have a very strong personal opposition to MLs in general, since I essentially regard them as traitors due to the faction’s pattern of conduct.
There’s few enough that I can get by blocking everyone with an account from hexbutt. Haven’t gotten a personal message telling me to kms or a shock link since I moved my main account.
That’s fair.
Lemmy.ml is full of tankie creeps, and there’s a big debate about defederating from it. One of the big talking points is that ml has a bunch of popular communities. These are alternatives to them.
Last I checked, dbzer0 is unfortunately still federated with the instance where if you name it everyone from it will start calling you a Nazi b/c you don’t want to lick Stalin’s feet. It’s not as much of a problem here, but it’s still something to consider.
Edit: getting targeted by tankies illustrates my point beautifully, so TY everyone who is making my argument for me.
Left unity is a lie perpetuated by tankies so we’ll be more compliant when they shove us against the wall.
Edit:after looking though the comment history, this account is clearly a Hexbear Alt. 24 in 2 months the last burst was over a month ago, and the first dealing directly with Hexbear.
You’re misunderstanding what I mean. .world’s advent marked a paradigm shift where .ml was no longer the “default” lemmy instance. So long as hexbear was federated with the “default” lemmy instance, they were able to inflict their insanity on everyone else. Now .world provides a large part of lemmy insulation against them.
Are you a tankie, an idiot, or both?
“Naw guys, the tankie platform is fine I promise. Please let us them harass everyone again. ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ”
You asked me why the fight against tankies was so much more prevalent, and my answer was:
The reason that people fight against tankies more than what you call fascists is because tankies are far more prevelant than what I and most other people on the platform consider fascism. That is to say, your definition of fascism entirely fails to encapsulate what most people mean when they use the word, and so you shouldn’t be surprised that they don’t complain about fascism as much as you do. It’s like if you went camping and then started screaming about how everyone’s suddenly saying that arson isn’t a big deal.
And that’s my answer. My answer is that you’re wrong to call liberals fascists, and if you can’t get along with someone you disagree with to fight against someone who’s trying to kill you your ideology is going to fail. Tankies have historically betrayed Anarchists and allied with fascists to secure power, and liberals have historically been far more tolerant of differing views. I’d much rather be friends with an honest liberal than a tankie, because the liberal is far less likely to stab me in the back and put my friends in a goddamn camp.
Edit: I’m sorry, I was arguing with someone else and didn’t realize it, my bad.
Edit2: actually, I’m done with this conversation now. You’re not answering my question and demanding that I answer yours instead, so I’d rather be left alone.
Try going outside; the sun is good for you.
The reason that people fight against tankies more than what you call fascists is because tankies are far more prevelant than what I and most other people on the platform consider fascism. That is to say, your definition of fascism entirely fails to encapsulate what most people mean when they use the word, and so you shouldn’t be surprised that they don’t complain about fascism as much as you do. It’s like if you went camping and then started screaming about how everyone’s suddenly saying that arson isn’t a big deal.
English has descriptive definitions; we look at what people mean when they say a word and then base our definition on that, rather than having an official definition that everyone is required to use. If you call liberals fascists, you are alienating a potential ally, and you’re going to be called a tankie because that’s the kind of backwards removed that Tankies do.
Liberals and fascists are different. You can disagree with liberals, but calling them fascists just lets fascism hide more easily.
I mean, dbzer0 is the one I actively use, so that one. It’s an anarchist instance, it’s the one that hosts the community, and I happen to align with the prevelant way of thinking, which made the decision fairly easy.
I can see it just fine. ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
Making a new account isn’t difficult; I chose my instance specifically because I wanted access to that particular community.
Democrats aren’t generally fascists.
Liberals aren’t usually fascists.
Calling these groups fascist is an ✨ a m a z i n g ✨ way to dilute the potency of the label, and thus has negative utility. Any definition of fascism that includes the DNC and excludes the RNC entirely fails in providing a useful foundation, be it for reasoning about the nature of fascism or creating propaganda.
I mean, sure, but I don’t think we should base our definition off of Italian fascism per-se. It just doesn’t capture modern notions of fascism. Most obviously, it doesn’t include contemporary American fascism, which openly derides the state as an institution.
You’re defining fascism as an organizational structure? So an island nation that’s able to be efficiently organized from the top down due to its small size is fascist, regardless of other considerations?
I generally regard people who perform apologetics for fascist states and insist that anyone who doesn’t agree with them isn’t left-wing while simultaneously decrying sectarianism as “tankies”.
I called you a tankie because tankies tend to refer to people as “fascist” wantonly and haphazardly. You even admitted that you consider people who disagree with what you refer to as leftists to be fascist, which lends credence to my assessment. I actually can’t say that you really are what I would consider a tankie, and I’m certainly willing to admit that I was wrong.
My definition of fascism is as such: Fascism is a political strategy that seeks to preserve, create, and entrench structures and relationships of power imbalance by means of promoting and facilitating mass, broad-spectrum chauvinism in ways that are likely to encourage widespread individual and systemic violence. “Chauvinism” here-in refers to an irrational belief that one’s own identity makes them superior. Note that this definition essentially covers the 14 characteristics of fascism as detailed by Umberto Eco, and generalizes them. It is not a type of governance nor is it a coherent political philosophy.
I’m not afraid that I may be a fascist because I constantly analyze my own thoughts and I’m very critical of myself. I also don’t really care if you think I’m a fascist or not, because I already believe that your opinion on the matter isn’t valuable given what you’ve already said.
Now if you answer the question I already asked instead of playing this game, I’ll be happy to address the rest of your comment. So, again: What definition of fascism are you using?
There’s a way to prove it; we know how quickly pain signals propagate through our nerves and how quickly nukes disintegrate matter. The degree of skepticism you’d need to be uncertain about it would cause you to need to resolve solipsism before you allowed nukes to even exist. There’s a certain radius within which, if you don’t have sufficient shielding there’s no possibility of pain. There’s another smaller radius for which no amount of shielding will change the outcome.