Here’s the thread: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/24345496
users from meanwhileongrad are banned from dbzer0, so you won’t be able to interact (which you shouldn’t be doing anyway)
This is only slightly related to MoG, considering dbzer0 is largely a tankie-apologist instance that caters a tankie bar, and the thread only allows dbzer0 users to vote. This post here can serve as a neutral space
where dbzer0 users can interact with Feddit users, and since MoG is referenced in the thread quite often.I actually saw that post, remarked on it, the moderator replied with an emoticon that said landlubber when I put the cursor over it. And they were giving vote totals in pirate themed pictures.
I believe that’s a bot
deleted by creator
That’s a thing the bot that counts votes does automatically.
not that im opposed to you being here, but I am curious as to why you are. I thought dbzer0 wrote this community off ages ago.
dbzer0 users can’t see this post since you are banned from the instance.
rip then
you can see it though. how’d you come across this post? I didn’t see it mentioned anywhere on YPTB
I didn’t unsubscribe from this community on this account yet.
Such anarchy!
users from meanwhileongrad are banned from dbzer0
lmao, really?
Yeah, they banned this entire community so none of them can see this community and we can’t see them
Nope. Fully federated. https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works
Edit: if a user is banned, say for using racial slurs and bad faith, any posts and comments don’t get shown after/during the ban.
i wonder where most of the posts went
It might be that many regular posters are instance banned.
There is a crowd of people who will call you a zionist for anything. Yesterday someone reposted a neo Nazi and used Nazi language in their post title. Me calling them on it? Makes me a zionist, obviously.
also im curious, can you link that comment?
Once outed as a repost of a neo nazi’s post, OP deleted the post, and also the “zionist” accusation was in a dm, so unfortunately not
Yeah I’ve had the same happen. It’s very disheartening to see so many anti-zionists unknowingly repeat Nazi slogans and talking points. You point it out, you mention that ‘hey, probably not a wise idea to use zio- since it’s a term coined by David Duke’
and they call you the nazi. like bruh, i aint the one quoting the KKK. that’s why I call them antisemitic, since if a neo-nazi was using the same arguments and excuses, I certainly wouldn’t buy it.
You have defended Israel in threads before and labeling everything as antisemitism is a Mossad talking point.
To be fair, I don’t agree with dbzero defederating though. Every removed comment was grossly insulting. Hard to know without more context, since we don’t have the comments they were replying to but I doubt they were deserving of the replies.
Can you give any examples? My opinions on different topics actively changes, I’m not opposed to change or considering that I may be wrong or ignorant.
I don’t label everything as antisemitic, only examples that are collective or phrases and theories that neo-nazis and other antisemites historically used, such as triple parentheses or the zio-pejorative. The latter is particularly common on Lemmy.
It’s in the same vein as “Israel has a right to defend itself”. It looks okay on the surface but ignores decades of context and the fact that Israel fostered Hamas and let the attack happen. It basically implies Palestine was asking for it.
The choice of vocab is telling as well just like how Israel isn’t “defending itself” but simply killing civilians. If you rephrase is more truthfully, as in “Would Israel be committing Genocide if the 7th of October attack hadn’t happened?”, the answer is it doesn’t matter. No reason ever justifies exterminating people.
I don’t know the context in which IndustryStandard is replying. That was 5 months ago; my views on Israel have dramatically changed since then.
Gaza wouldn’t be in the state it is now if the 7th of October massacres never occurred, if Hamas, which Israel fostered, never carried out the attacks. It’d still be greatly oppressed, but not a smoking rubble with a starving populace. The reason absolutely does matter since that’s the excuse Israel uses to carry out their genocide, ‘Oh, those civilians were totally just collateral! It’s war! This happens despite us having the most sophisticated intelligence agency in the world’
Pointing out that Israel used the massacres as a proxy to carry out their extreme violence isn’t defending Israel. It’s not saying that Israel is justified, I’m not making any of those claims. Admittedly, I could’ve specified, so I’ll do so now:
The 7th of October massacres were the triggering event that allowed Israel to pursue a level of destruction that wouldn’t have been politically possible otherwise. Identifying that this is the moment the mask fell doesn’t justify Israel’s actions. The responsibility for the destruction lies with Israel, which is choosing to destroy Gaza. If these massacres never happened (which I need to stress, Israel’s intelligence was well aware of these attacks and allowed them anyway), would Gaza be in the state it is now?
“Hamas started it” is never a good look. It ignore a lot of context which is precisely what the person meant when saying Israel has always been an obstacle to peace.
More importantly, it’s fixating on the wrong thing. The massacre x 10 000 that is genocide kind of overshadows the rest of it. Using who “started” it as an argument just comes off as trying to justify it.
Like there’s a mountain of corps and half of them are children.
Here’s the comment link: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/20723627
It’s really just that. Someone accused you of taking Israel’s side and you defended yourself by saying “Hamas did it first”.
I never said Hamas started it. The conflict between Palestine and Israel has been going on for decades. I’m saying that Hamas’s actions on the 7th of October gave Israel the excuse it was looking for to carry out what’s happening now.
You combed back 5 months into their history to find this…? That’s …weird to say the least.
Maybe they were just good at keeping on the mask, but it’s a bit sad because I remember a year ago seeing most of db0 openly clowning on tankies whenever they showed up.
Now Unruffled seems to be pushing to make the whole instance explicitly tankie/campist.
db0 is super cucked too. He pointed out that they have a red fash problem and unruffled disagreed. Now here they are banning “Zionist” bars, while openly being a Tankie bar.
I am amazed that they don’t defederate from Hexbear despite all their supposed hatred and grievances towards the instance. Like you have Hexbear saying verbatim that tankies will kill anarchists, and you… just shrug?
they probably got taken over, as time when on.
It may have occurred during the exodus, where users from dbzer0 told db0 and unruffled, two techbros, that AI is not anarchist. Instead of relenting, the admins argued, and so many users left. It was during this time that many new dbzer0 accounts were created in support of db0’s views on AI, and these new users are supposedly tankie alts.
now of course this is purely hearsay. I wasn’t online during this drama and only heard about it from a few users who DMed me.
regardless i do find the GenAI usage a bit weird for an anarchist instance. like, you’re giving fuel to one of the biggest rorts in history, fuelling billionaires and their technocracy.
Db0 sometimes attacks Tankies, although self-admittedly, he is soft on them. Other times, he even camps with them.
They’ve both told me that they prefer spending time with tankies instead of liberals, and consider liberals the bigger threat than tankies are. Which is curious considering the history of MLs and anarchists with how the MLs often betray anarchists. I believe their accusations of calling this community a nazi-bar stems from insecurity of their own spaces, where they regularly defend prominent tankies.
I’ve never seen unruffled attack them though.
Depending on how liberal is being used, i wouldn’t disagree. Objectively for many they are the more active threat. But fuck camping with ML who fantasize similar things. The ML our fascistic Epstein class are eagerly cribbing notes from.
In the west and US specifically we’ve had our language actively manipulated and poisoned. By ghouls like but not limited to Frank Luntz. In the US most that would call themselves liberal would actually be socially liberal. Not acolytes of economic liberalism, which is what liberal historically and still currently to a large geographic area still means. Socially liberal people aren’t an a problem, but also aren’t liberals. Economic Liberals like Musk, Trump etc are an active threat to everyone. Themselves included.
Why do you lump the entirety of the West with the US when it comes to liberalism? The US is hardly a liberal country. For example, in my country, what’s considered Liberal is considered conservative.
Liberalism outside the US is largely dominated by social liberalism, in which basic policies such as universal healthcare, a livable minimum wage, and a welfare state are taken as the baseline for governance. It’s not left or right, it’s standard. When people outside the US mention liberalism, they typically mean social liberalism, which the US severely lacks.
I believe most of the drama regarding liberalism v (insert here) stems from a US-defaultism perspective, which is wrong, since fuck the US. When I mention liberalism, I don’t mean whatever backwards shit the US has going on.
I mentioned the US specifically. As a subsection of the west. Not lumping the west with it. That wasn’t the intention.
You mean social democracy? Liberalism/capitalisms natural tendencies all trend towards consolidation and oligarchy. And has only been held at bay via social democracy. It’s why they (the US specifically) have overthrown other democracies that wouldn’t side with them. And eventually turned to cannibalizing and erasing their own democracy. As it gets in their way.
But yes, the US defaultism as you put it was getting at. It causes a lot of misunderstanding and needless drama.
glad we could sort that one out then. I fucking hate the US and their defaultism on everything.
We all have to keep mindful of our own unique experiences and bias. Not just assume everyone should know blank. It’s part of why traveling and meeting other people helps reduce bigotry. Reminds us of just how little we know.
yeah absolutely. it’s why i go out of my way to interact with many who I disagree with, neo-nazis, tankies, islamic extremists
I’ve only seen this confusion around liberalism come up in lemmy. I think it’s due to tankie rhetoric poisoning the idea.
When people outside the US mention liberalism, they typically mean social liberalism, which the US severely lacks.
It’s the other way around as explained extensively.
General definitions & the historical development of liberalism are academic & largely accepted worldwide.
liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.
Some of the earliest liberal practices are found in the US Declaration of Independence, which predates the French revolution spreading the practice of liberal ideals throughout Europe. The US declaration pretty much rehashes core tenets of liberal philosophy
- inherent equality of individuals
- universal individual rights & liberties
- consent of the governed (governments exist for the people who have a right to change & replace them, & authority is legitimate only when it protects those liberties).
Note how capitalism isn’t mentioned anywhere: it’s nonessential. Capitalism predates & isn’t liberalism. Liberalism is moral & political philosophy, not an economic one.
The philosophy is a natural progression of humanist philosophies from the Renaissance through the Protestant Reformation & the Enlightenment that stress the importance of individuality, secular reasoning, & tolerance over dogma & subservience to unaccountable authority. To address unaccountable authority based on dogma & traditions, English & French philosophers defined legitimate authority based on humanist morality pretty much as expressed in the US declaration. They argued that political systems thrive better with limits & duties on authority & an adversarial system of institutional competition whether in separation of powers, adversarial law system with habeas corpus & right to jury trial, competitive elections, dialogue, or economic competition.
In time, goals shifted from addressing obstacles to individual freedom due to government to addressing obstacles due to the rest of society. Thus emerged the distinction between classical & modern liberalism:
- Classical liberalism: minimal government to eliminate traditional obstacles to individual freedom
- Modern liberalism: positive government intervention to address social & economic inequalities in the cause of individual freedom
As explained before, in the US, modern liberalism (which includes social liberalism & progressivism) is simply called liberalism whereas classical liberalism more closely corresponds to libertarianism.
I think US liberals & the rest of the world agree that modern liberalism ought to be standard.
It’s the other way around as explained extensively.
Your link doesn’t work
Yeah after looking at the history of Ukrainian anarchists I just don’t understand how anyone could be a bigger threat than tankies.
It’s because they’re both communist, so Anarchists keep trying to believe in “Left Unity”
Anarchists who don’t want to align with tankies are attacked for not believing in left unity, both by a few other anarchists and by many other tankies.
Somehow “left unity” always means everyone else adjusting to MLs and not the other way
fortunately that’s why tankies and their dreams of a long-dead communism will never happen. they don’t have allies or any influence
dbzero: “We don’t like people getting banned for not being nice enough!”
Also dbzero: “Rule number 1 here is that you have to be nice!”
uhhhhh… saying death to any country or group is inherently violent and extremist.
What gave me pause was this
Calling for the destruction of Israel must obviously mean you want to kill every last man, woman and child, rather than simply wanting to overthrow Netanyahu’s genocidal fascist regime. Because [bad faith] reasons.
Travel writer Rick Steves recorded a taxi driver in Tehran exclaiming “Death to traffic!” in English, explaining that “when something frustrates us and we have no control over it, this is what we say”. Steves compares the phrase to non-literal use of the word damn in American English.
There’s definitely a cultural translation issue here
but they are literal.
Death to the Republican party!
yeah that too
even though i agree with it
But I am saying death to the party, not members of the party. Calling for the Republican party to end doesn’t mean that the members of the Republican party need to end.
‘Death to Israel’ is not the same as ‘death to Israelis’.
No, you didn’t. Death to X is always ambiguous and can refer to anything, that’s why extremists use it. If you don’t want people to interpret Death to X as violent extremism, then you need to specify
Like how you already specified.
So when you agreed to him saying the Republican Party, and before his clarification, which way were you interpreting it?
Violence
Fascists get no mercy
If you believe this, why then do you have a problem with the phrase “death to Israel?” Zionism is a fascist ideology, and Israel is an ethno-supremacist project of Zionists.
I should note that I disagree with you. Calling for the death of all Republicans is just as wrong as calling for the death of all Israelis. I despise fascists, but I don’t want them all dead, I want them to face justice. Though the ambiguity of the phrase “death to Israel” does not bother me, as I think the context is usually more than enough to resolve that ambiguity.
Wish I was surprised.
This is a very interesting comment
Third reply down, “Draconic NEO,” is literally an AI porn spamming account that originated a few days ago and keeps on coming back under slight changes to their alias after getting bannedEdit: Okay, I was happily wrong. A spambot harrassing Draconic exists.
not quite!
Draconic NEO is a legitimate user who occasionally posts here, but a spambot keeps following Draconic around, posting defamatory comments and generally harassing. Fortunately these bots don’t work in this community
originated a few days ago
Na, those are just the latest accounts, I blocked some of them months ago.
I didn’t take much from it, but one thing that surprised me is that they seem to think Europe is more pro Zionist than USA weirdly.
Not the governments, the people specifically.
Proving that so many of these communities are American circlejerks.
absolutely. so sick and tired of the yanks
The Defed-iverse Wars, begun it has.
wouldn’t surprise me if dbzer0 defederates from SJW next
I don’t think one ethnicity of people should have more rights than others in a state. And I think levelling an area under your aegis is a war crime. Someone gonna ban me for that?
no that’s pretty fair
Line em up against the wall…
that’s one of the comments that feddit admins removed, yeah
Removed by mod
Automod banned this account for trolling
