I guess it’s tradition to post here. Some random comment somewhere netted these community and instance bans. Whoever did that doesn’t like communists
I’m inclined to believe OP failed a tankie purity test or sometimes similar.
Lemmygrad is not for everyone. In fact, it is a heavily insulated corner of the Fediverse. If you do not belong, then you lost nothing by being made unwelcome. Many instances are not federated with Lemmygrad, and I am surprised slightly that federation is even maintained with Lemmy.zip.
Yeah I know, I just don’t investigate which instance it happens to be on when there’s a commentable thing on the feed. But it’s a funny thing to get so worked up with the little bans when nothing was antagonistic towards them.
Instances do have their own character. Such differences are an intentional and favorable feature of the Fediverse, but also demand a basic level of consideration, for effective navigation.
“Don’t you dare disagree with me, or I’ll get really hostile and ban you” doesn’t demand consideration or respect.
I mean its still their space, but its hard to disagree with you on that
I have no power to stop Lemmygrad from existing, and it is unlikely that I would find cause to advocate against its being allowed to continue existing, as long as it operates simply as a site for activity that many would recognize as protected freedoms of expression.
Additionally, I am using an instance that is not federated with Lemmygrad. As such, my experience in the Lemmyverse is just the same as though Lemmygrad did not exist, which I find quite optimal. LIkewise, Lemmygrad users would not be receptive to my politics, as much so as I am not agreeable to its politics.
Among the virtues of a federated design is that we may choose the experiences we prefer, against the inevitability that others will exist who prefer experiences quite different.
All of that, I agree with. It’s fine. In the same way, I certainly believe that maga.place should be permitted to exist.
My point was that implicitly asking people to give “consideration” in the way that you did, is asking that some level of respect be granted to people who are giving none in return. It’s the paradox of tolerance. It’s okay to shun people who are making excuses and apologetics for literal mass murder, even to laugh at them for balling up their fists and shutting their eyes tight, and insisting that you are the one who is jingoistic, hostile, counterfactual, unreasonable, and all that, if you aren’t fans of the same mass murderers they are.
I meant “consideration” in the sense of reaching decisions based on awareness.
I think you simply misinterpreted my phrasing.
So you don’t know what led to the ban?
Probably something “super controversial” that got downvoted here
