TIL lemmy.ml is a pro-authoritarian CCP shill instance

https://lemmynsfw.com/post/262488

TIL lemmy.ml is a pro-authoritarian CCP shill instance - Lemmy NSFW

For all the newcomers that aren’t aware, I just stumbled upon this insane drama. Apparently lemmy.ml [http://lemmy.ml] is the result of a reddit sub ban of a bunch of pro-china bots who vigorously defend the Chinese government, and the two top admins are also the top devs of the Lemmy source software. Pretty terrible stuff! The linked thread is full of their insane ramblings and denialism.

Good thing that what they are building is super transparent, open source and distributed. That critical post wasn’t even deleted.

As long as that remains the case, I’m happy that Lemmy is a place where you can find all kinds of views represented.

Oh yeah, I’m really happy that alt-right/ *ist/neonazi/etc views are represented.

So glad for diversity of bigotry!

Suppressing different views on a platform doesn’t make them go away, it only radicalises them. The only real, long term solution is debate and persuasion.

I remember a point of time not too long ago when the world didn’t tolerate this bullshit out in the open.

Guess what? We didn’t have the extreme issues we’re seeing now from these groups after allowing them to advertise over every legit platform.

So don’t feed me this shit that if we don’t give them a platform, that they will become a problem. They are a bloody fucking problem ** now** that we have.

Anger and bans and lack of discussion is exactly what fuels it. Let natural attrition happen and people will find common ground.

people will find common ground.

Halfway between racist and not, is not somewhere I care to ever be.

Common ground is not necessarily right in the middle

Don’t take this badly, but we’re all racist (or at least some kind of “-ist”) because the Human Cognitive System naturally uses simplifications to be able to interpret and take decisions on the world around us, including on people, so boiling people down to some “group” on something very visible (gender, skin color, clothing, the kind of words they use, how they move and speak and so on) and then assuming they’re “like” some idea you have about people from that group (i.e prejudicing them) is a natural tendency.

Further all those ideas one has about “people from a group” are invariably bollocks and often absorbed subconsciously through the same mechanisms as used by Marketing to influence people.

All you can do is be on the watch for you yourself making such unfair judgements on others due to your own mental simplifying and categorizing of people, and stopping it when you notice it and refraining from acting based on any judgements that cannot be traced to what that individual has done and said (all of which if Cognitivelly a lot heavier than “categorization and assumption”).

So de facto racism isn’t about holding prejudiced ideas it’s about a whole range of how much effort you make to treat people based on their individual actions and words alone and stopping yourself from using categorization to judge people (and even decide what to tell them and how to act towards them).

Note that I’m not trying to excuse racism here: I’m saying you can’t simply deem yourself “not a racist”, because it’s the result of natural human tendencies so ethernal vigilance is required not to act so even if your intentions are pure.

All this to say that “racism” (or more generally categorizing people and making prejudiced judgements on them base on that category) really isn’t the right thing to claim has no middle ground, because it’s a range and a person’s position on it boils down to how much effort on makes to try and stop yourself from action on the “conclusions” coming through such cognitive paths.

Or to put things in another way - people who practice violent acts against others purelly based on the skin color of said others are very racist (extremelly so) and people who have different expectations on the behaviour, life status and even worth as a person (i.e. presumed good person or presumed bad person) of others based on their skin color are also racist though if they don’t actually act on it or verbalized it they’re way way less racist that the extreme ones.

Can I naturally attrite my fists on a Nazi face? If yes I second your proposal, if not please stop with these bullshit points
Outside? Sure.
I wanna do it even here. It’s that ok with you or are you too much of a pussy to fight back even in a virtual space where there is close to no risk for you as an individual? Or maybe you don’t want to fight because you don’t dislike this ideology so much…
You mean argue? Yeah, that’s what I’m doing. Punching the screen? Feel free to do that, but I’ll pass.

Nono, I mean punching literal faces or relentlessly forcing people out of inclusionary spaces. Shun them as the Germans did with nazis post WWII, there is only good to be achieved with this tactic.

I would never punch my screen, I need it to shame nazis wherever I go.

Ah yes, let just allow a bunch of violent extremists bring their radicalising ideas to the mainstream through the use of logical fallacies and of fake news in an historical period where the investments in schools and higher education are stifled by most of the world governments, I’m sure nothing bad will happen.

Am I right, Florida? And what about you Texas, do you also think I’m right? Italy and part of Germany are sure I’m right, so this must be a great idea.

Fucking centrists

Do you think your position is somehow inferior and you cannot persuade people? If not, do just that.
There are mountains of historical evidence and examples to suggest that these people are not behaving rationally or even willing to be persuaded. You can’t reason someone out of a position that they didn’t first reason themselves in to.
Some won’t be persuaded, some will. Plus, when there’s a bunch of people in a room, there’s a collective will to find consensus and be liked. People who didn’t reason themselves into their position will move their views closer to that of the collective to be more comfortable. At the same time, if they are being banned and restricted, there’s an instinctual will to fight back. E.g. if someone is angry at me or hostile towards me, it almost doesn’t matter if I agree with them, I’m likely to oppose them.

Oh yeah, let’s talk about millions of American voters (to make an example) being fucked in the head by the alt-right as “someone”. Just s few people being duped and convinced to fight for an exclusionary ideology, what could go wrong? They surely would never try to organise a coup to forcibly take control of our governments, right?

Such a great position to hold, if you are deaf or blind

Oh yeah, let’s talk about millions of American voters (to make an example) being fucked in the head by the alt-right as “someone”. Just s few people being duped and convinced to fight for an exclusionary ideology, what could go wrong? They surely would never try to organise a coup to forcibly take control of our governments, right?

Such a great position to hold, if you are deaf or blind

Oh yeah, let’s talk about millions of American voters (to make an example) being fucked in the head by the alt-right as “someone”. Just s few people being duped and convinced to fight for an exclusionary ideology, what could go wrong? They surely would never try to organise a coup to forcibly take control of our governments, right?

Such a great position to hold, if you are deaf or blind

Plus, how would you have handled a swarm of uneducated swines refusing to partake in the most common cure to a viral disease, transforming themselves in the biggest biological threat to our societies? As a centrist I’m sure you would have fought to find “common ground” with the virus…

Jan 6th is the result of exactly the thing I’m warning against. If people are forced to create their own isolated groups, the views that make them isolated will only strengthen. If they are out in the open, it’s an opportunity to bring them back into the mainstream. If antivax views weren’t being removed, way fewer people would believe in them.

The problem with isolating as you intend it is that the sole web isolation Is not enough. They need even more isolation from any aspect of civilized society to learn their lesson.

Bar them from schools, hospitals, streets, public spaces and see how quickly their number will decrease, both for changes of hearts as well as for natural causes

If antivax views weren’t being removed, way fewer people would believe in them.

If google removed Coca Cola ads from their service, more people would buy coke.

I think my position cannot be defended when my interlocutor dies not engage with a civil and honest debate, using smears, fake news and logical fallacies to cover his lack of ground to sustain his position. Furthermore the only viable way to maintain a power structure based on these assumptions it’s to defend it via the use of brute force. Once these people will gain power there will be no way to avoid their violence repressing any opposition to their ideology, as we are seeing in all those states I cited in my previous reply which are now passing laws repressing the access to voter rights and limiting the people ability to join advocacy groups and activist parties.

So, no, I don’t think my position is weaker than that of a nazi but I do recognise the need to apply the same violence they would use once in power to deny them the chance to make their ideology a reality for all of us.

Intolerance should be fought with intolerance since it does not understand any other reasoning outside of pure physical strength.

Any tactic that they can use to argue, you can use too. Plus, you have the truth on your side. Why wouldn’t the optimal view win? The justification “they’d do it if they were to come to power” can be applied to any group and leads to authoritarianism. Trust that people are, in total, not idiots. There will always be some dangerous people, but that’s unavoidable.

Again, you are arguing to the opposite result of what an in depth analysis of the current world situation would lead to.

First of all I am not going to engage a debate in a dishonest way. Call it my upbringing, my character or whatever you like but if I do engage in a discussion with someone, like I am with you now, I do it with the premise that I don’t hold the truth in my hands and that I can always be persuaded to change my mind if presented with a correct reasoning and with truthful data. This alone does not allow to follow your magnificent suggestion to use dirty debate tactics and false information to fight a wave of bullshit I would be subjected to should I entertain an exchange with a fascist, a nazi or a communist.

Secondly, it is impossible to fight in a logical way an argument which has been implanted in people minds through emotions. The only thing which can counter this seedling is an even stronger emotion and, as Germany has reached us with its re-education campaign following WWII, shun and shame are two perfectly fine instruments in this effort.

Thirdly, there is not an hypothetical in my phrasing (if they were to come to power) because they ARE already in power in states like Texas, Florida and other nations around the world and we can clearly see that, in order to preserve this democratically obtained power, they are dismantling the same democracy which gave them this power in the first place.

Lastly, your free use of terms such as “some”, “someone”, “a few” does present the issue as if it touched to a small number of people. May I remind you that 74 millions people voted for Donald Trump in the 2020 elections? Are they all fascists or nazis? Impossible, but still they are all ready to give a fascist the keys to the white house for a second term, so they are all part of the problem.

A problem which, I reiterate, cannot be solved by simply sitting down and calmly discussing with someone asking for the eradication of a minority for the betterment of his own life.

I’m not against shunning and shaming, I’m completely for it! But to shun and shame, they have to be present on social media.

Abso-fucking-lutely not. Nazis were not present during the German people re-education campaign following WWII and still the German people were able to be taught about the horrors of nazism quite well.

To shun and shame someone it does not have to be present during the discussion, you can just point at it from a distance and explain the reasons behind the social stigma from afar.

If you take away the nazis chances to promote their ideology in the “marketplace of ideas” you are not giving them more power, you are taking the little power they have away from them and you are forcing them to be enclosed in their safe space where they won’t have any possibility to reproduce. Once they will die out of exhaustion or old age no new generation will be left to keep on their fight.

Nazi Germans were not present after WW2? That’s a crazy thing to say when they were the ones who elected the Nazi party in the first place.

We should probably establish who we are talking about here more precisely. Are we talking about literal Nazis who kill people or are we talking about those who are angry at minorities and dislike Jews? Is it even everyone who voted Trump? If it’s the latter, you’re gonna find that you can’t just use force, the % is too large.

Given that this seems to be more of an interrogation rather than a discussion I will return to answer your questions when you will start answering mine.

How would you have handled the Corona virus situation in respect to the anti-vax crowd? Would you have left possible viral carriers free to roam inside your society or would you have placed restrictions on their rights? Should you have chosen the former option how would you have handled the backlash of the weakest people in the population unable to take the vaccine? In case of the latter option which restrictions would you have put in place for these anti-science people?

Looking forward to your reply

Still waiting for a reply to my questions. Is it possible that everyone shilling for fascists is not able to have a normal discussion while being the most pro-debate person on a face value?

EveRybOdY dEseRvEs tO Be diScUsSed WitH

Bitch, I’d love to discuss with you but you run from our debate at the first chance

Literally just had a guy tell me with a straight face that Biden is going to blot out the sun to fix global warming
The fuck has this anything to do with this discussion?
Pointing out an example of how extremist and sometimes absolutely ridiculous viewpoints are being spread throughout America
What you were talking about is a possibile solution to the climate crisis we are living through being discussed in the appropriate sites and by the appropriate people. I fail to see the extremism you are talking about, unless you consider the climate crisis an extrmism but this would qualify you as a complete moron…
Mate fucking what??? Did you just say blotting out THE SUN is a legitimate solution??? Not only is this literally not possible with today’s technology it would cause far more harm than good. The guy was a trump supporter who was saying that as a reason for not voting for Biden. No, blotting out the sun is not a possible solution nor is it being discussed by anyone who’s not insane. “Biden blotting out the sun” is the type of far right extremist propaganda I was pointing out. I don’t know how this isn’t obvious

Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t know I was talking to a climate scientist with years of experience in the field.

Again, I’m not saying this could be a viable solution as I don’t have the competences nor the entirety of the data at my disposal to technically evaluate its feasibility. Furthermore, this is not (yet) a confirmed plan nor is a currently implemented program, it is one of the many solutions being evaluated by EXPERTS in dedicated settings to try solving a crisis which may very well bring our species on the brink of extinction in a matter of decades. And I don’t know about you, but I tend to trust scientists and their expertise when talking about complex issues such as the climate crisis.

To me what is insane is that we have to be talking about such radical solutions to face an issue which may have been started to be challenged 50 or 60 years ago had the 7 sisters not lied to the politicians and the general public from the '60es.

If the far right extremists are taking the solution out if context presenting it as if we are talking to create a Matrix-like world is of course the usual far-right method of lying to the public presenting an issue in a partisan and extremist way and it’s a problem of their electors if they aren’t able to see beyond the lies they are being fed by these ignorant morons.

I’m sorry but I beg to disagree,

First, it assumes that all views are equally valid and worthy of debate, which is not the case. Some views, such as fascism, are inherently antidemocratic, violent, and oppressive, and do not deserve a platform in a free society. Fascism is not just a different opinion, but a political ideology and mass movement that seeks to exalt nation and often race above the individual and to forcibly suppress any opposition. Giving fascists a platform to spread their propaganda and recruit followers is not only irresponsible, but also dangerous, as history has shown.

So, what do you propose to do with fascists, racists, etc? Kill them? Debate is an opportunity to get those people, who are probably very dissatisfied with life, on the right path. Removal from platforms leads to them creating their own, isolated groups that get ever more radicalised. Every view, however dumb it may be, is worthy of debate or of at least being seen (people are free to ignore it). Not all views are equally valid, of course, but the validity of views is determined precisely during debate and argumentation. I don’t support fascism, racism, etc but if there’s a shortcut to remove those views from the public, the same shortcut can be used to remove anything! That’s a clear route to authoritarianism.
It’s so funny how some people don’t get this.

Removal from platforms leads to them creating their own, isolated groups that get ever more radicalised.

Yeah, but stormfront hasn’t had nearly the effect that allowing Nazi’s to post on reddit/twitter/etc has. You have to understand you can’t unpack on ‘humiliate’ these people. Look at Steven Crowder, absolutely humiliated and shamed as he ran away from any debate with Sam Seder. And what happened to his views? Just as high as they were before. The only thing that hits these people is getting them off large platforms.

As soon as they have a voice, it looks like an equal voice. Look at the absolute travesty that was the climate change ‘debate’. Giving climate change deniers a seat didn’t persuade everyone against it, it delayed the acceptance of fact be years.

I propose to kill them socially. Shun them from any collective gathering and let them live at the edge of society as they wish. Are you antivax? Very good, no medical treatments for you. If you don’t believe in vaccines I don’t see why you should be using antibacterials or chemo treatments.

You don’t like the laws protecting the right of minorities? Don’t ask for law enforcement to show up at your house should you ever be robbed or attacked. Either you respect the law or you don’t ask for its support when it’s convenient to you.

Are you a dickhead to others and cannot live normally around people different from you? Go live in the woods with someone akin to you and you alone.

We would very quickly loose all the deadbeats who are a menace to a civilised society and we wouldn’t even have to get physical with them.

How does this feel as a proposal?

Yeah let’s forget about the laws and the equality of people in front of the constitution

But it is you, with your authoritarian way, which would force them to follow medical advices and practices these people do not want to follow. I personally am only giving in in their worldview and I am allowing them to live with the consequences of their actions.

Besides, I see that you are completely ignoring all my questions and point against your reasoning so I’m left to wonder what is this conversation bringing to the table. As far as I can see little to nothing, we do have a problem but you are just arguing to keep the status quo as it is. Let me remind you that this status quo has brought us to the situation we are in now and that, to avoid worse outcomes, we do need to change something in our society. Leaving everything as it is wouldn’t help in solving any issue as we are bring shown by the situations developing in red states and in countries around the world, so what would you want to do to improve the situation?

As a practical example, how would you have handled the COVID crisis and the anti-vax population? Give me a straight answer and no word salads please

Second,the argument ignores the fact that debate and persuasion are not always effective or possible when dealing with fascists. Fascists are not interested in rational dialogue or evidence, but in emotional manipulation and intimidation. They use lies, distortions, and appeals to fear and hatred to sway their audience. They also resort to violence and terrorism when they feel threatened or challenged. Trying to debate fascists only gives them more opportunities to spread their lies and hatred, and to silence or attack their critics.
Third, the argument overlooks the harm that allowing fascist views on a platform can cause to the people who are targeted by them. Fascists often scapegoat and demonize minorities, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, women, Jews, Muslims, and other groups that they consider inferior or enemies. By giving fascists a platform, we are exposing these vulnerable groups to hate speech, harassment, discrimination, and even physical violence. We are also normalizing and legitimizing fascism as a valid political option, which can erode our democratic values and institutions.
Targeted harassment and physical harm should, of course, be prohibited, nobody is arguing againt that. Having randos post their intolerant views on social media doesn’t legitimize it in any way. It instead gives others a chance to talk them out of it.
Dawg this is like the fifth comment of yours I’ve seen defending fascists and wanting to give fascists a platform. No one wants your hateful, evil views here. GTFO.
This guy has done nothing but provide pretty basic empathetic takes, take a chill pill
Fascism is everything you don’t like, got it

And that’s a very bad thing, right? We should like fascits more, maybe they will then become our friends and we will all be able to live together peacefully in a perfect society.

Get fucking lost

Dawg this is like the fifth comment of yours I’ve seen defending fascists and wanting to give fascists a platform. No one wants your hateful, evil views here. GTFO. You guys already have a fascist social media platform. It’s called Twitter.
Well, you have to at least try. It will be effective to some extent. If they use distortion or intimidation, reveal it and make them look dumb. Emotional manipulation can be used by all sides. Of course, if they resort to violence, you are free to supress violence with violence.

Are you 12? Never dealt with fascists and bigots in real life? Debating then legitimizes their beliefs as valid and presents said views as just an alternative view, rather than the hateful, vile thing these beliefs actually are.

“In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.”

Good thing you and the likes of you aren’t anywhere near power because you’d start a civil war.
Maybe you didn’t notice but the civil war has already started. Just because you don’t see police forces and the army marching in the street it does not mean that there isn’t a war being wedged against minorities and the rule of law. And you are fighting for the bad side should this be not clear. The side which attacked Capitol Hill to keep a fascist orange in power might I add
Third, the argument overlooks the harm that allowing fascist views on a platform can cause to the people who are targeted by them. Fascists often scapegoat and demonize minorities, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, women, Jews, Muslims, and other groups that they consider inferior or enemies. By giving fascists a platform, we are exposing these vulnerable groups to hate speech, harassment, discrimination, and even physical violence. We are also normalizing and legitimizing fascism as a valid political option, which can erode our democratic values and institutions.
Targeted harassment and physical harm should, of course, be prohibited, nobody is arguing againt that. Having randos post their intolerant views on social media doesn’t legitimize it in any way. It instead gives others a chance to talk them out of it.

What makes you think that these people, who are far and away more passionate and deeply entrenched in their belief can be convinced by giving them a platform? When we can’t even talk you out of not giving them any.

We should not legitimize these views by giving them a chance.

What would convince them? If they spend time on sites that are set up specifically for people with their views, they don’t get challenged much. On the other hand, if they talk to the rest of the world, there’s a carrot and a stick. I’m not saying don’t argue with them or don’t shit on them. I’m just saying don’t ban them unless they are calling for violence.

When we can’t even talk you out of not giving them any.

🤣 The difference is that my position is based on logic and theirs is based on emotions. Your argument is to say they are incorrigeable and there’s no point in talking to them and the only thing we can do is to shove the problem under the carpet. If you do that, the problem will only accumulate.

Your argument is to say they are incorrigeable and there’s no point in talking to them and the only thing we can do is to shove the problem under the carpet.

That also sums up my position.

If you do that, the problem will only accumulate.

First of all, I don’t think that’s true. If we ban advertisments for Coca Cola, we just push the problem under the carpet, and Coke fans will only accumulate?

That, of course, is nonsense. When everyone else is allowed to do normal marketing, while you are not, your product, idea, or ideology will slowly start to fade, fizzle, and die out. I mean, if what you are saying is true… Do the Nazis also think so? Do they understand your argument? Do they think that their groups, their views, and their representatives should remain banned? After all, your argument goes, this is what will make them “accumulate”.

For some reason the Nazis themselves don’t seem to want that. They want to be on national television. Literal Nazis want antisemitism on all channels, and holocaust denial taught in schools. They apparently don’t understand your argument, that ideologies accumulate and win, when you suppress them.

I suspect that Nazis are correct when they themselves reject your line of reasoning.

I’ve followed this philosophy in the past in communities I’ve moderated. Every single time, it has only served to taint the community with bad vibes and the fascist provoking trouble didn’t learn a single thing. Never again. Kick them all out, I’m not sacrificing the quality of my own spaces for the sake of making them a little bit not so much pieces of shit.