79
A story as old as federated social media, in 3 parts
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
79 points (85.6% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
0 readers
3 users here now
This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.
Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.
Rules
- Post only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s).
- Provide the cause of the sanction (e.g. the text of the comment).
- Provide the reason given by the mods for the sanction.
- Don't use private communications to prove your point. We can't verify them and they can be faked easily.
- Don't deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
- Don't harass mods or brigade comms. Don't word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
- Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
- You can post about power trippin' in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.
Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.
Some acronyms you might see.
- PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
- YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
- BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
- CLM - Clueless mod: The mod probably just doesn't understand how their software works.
Relevant comms
founded 3 months ago
I’m really confused as an anarchist myself.
I know some anarchists who believe we should boycott the system and not vote, I know some anarchists who believe we should vote for Jill Stein because she is the most progressive candidate, and I know some anarchists (which include myself) who think along more utilitarian lines, that this election will can only end in two outcomes, and that one will cause a lot more suffering than the other, therefore I will vote for the one that causes the least suffering.
We anarchists believe more in direct action than voting, but that doesn’t mean we can’t vote.
I’m very concerned about this censorship of discourse on an anarchist community. And want to know what the moderator who made this decision’s rationale was. Would this comment be removed in !anarchism@slrpnk.net because I say not all anarchists vote for Jill Stein?
They made a long attempt to defend themself here:
https://slrpnk.net/comment/11904145
If you have some time, read the whole thing. There's all kinds of interesting treasure in there.
So my comment would be removed because according to the mod I provide “ideological cover for evil”, by not supporting Jill Stein, even though my rationale conforms with anarchist ideals?
No, the argument is something like this: you can vote (or not vote) however you like and voting strategically or for the lesser evil is a compromise many Anarchists make, but you are lying to yourself and others if you claim that this is anything but a painful compromise. Jill Stein is irrelevant for that question.
I agree with what you said, via painful compromise and such, but that’s not the impression I got of the driving force behind the moderator’s decisions.
It seemed more like they were removing the comments because basically suggesting to vote for the lesser evil was in their view providing justification for evil and does not belong in the community.
If that’s the view of the moderators is that only idealistic (black or white) anarchism is welcome, and all forms of pragmaticism or utilitarianism or philosophicisim within anarchist ideals are unwelcome in the community, I will have to stop participating.
I can't speak for the exact reasoning, but my impression is more like this:
The OP made a post explicitly about how voting is not enough and that direct action is needed (a very uncontroversial position for Anarchists) in an Anarchist community and because it is upvoted a lot and hits the all feed, some non-anarchist liberals show up in the comments and Reply-Bro their off-topic views about how it is absolutely crucial to vote for Harris and spout their various hypocritical justifications as of why. As a result the OP gets angry at those uninvited comments and deletes some of them and closes the thread and also gives a temp ban to some especially argumentative people that clearly didn't get the message.
I find this pretty sensible over all, as this isn't about not welcoming "all forms of pragmaticism or utilitarianism or philosophicisim within anarchist ideals" but rather about showing people the door who are clearly not anarchists nor seem to be interested in learning about it.
Thanks for engaging with me. I don’t have the energy to properly read or reply to your comment right now, I’ll come back to it tomorrow.
Here’s the mod log. IMO the OP already invited those comments (the post says in the first few lines that Trump is way more dangerous) and I don’t see how they were bludgeoning or hypocritical.
Yes they didn't understand it either, but you have to keep in mind which community they commented in.
Erm, which they are you referring to? Nobody's saying elections are better than anarchism, and as I've said below (on my alt account of the same name), I don't see how saying voting for Harris is better than voting for Stein contradicts election principles. It's not like Greta endorses Stein either.
There is a detailed body of theoretical works in Anarchism about how Electoralism is counter-productive and mostly just distracts from the real work that is needed. This isn't about Harris or Stein. Coming into an Anarchist community and arguing about the need to vote for a candidate is similar to coming to a Vegan community and starting to argue that eggs are better than meat and maybe a little meat is not so bad after all.
I agree with this thread, which I saw a while ago.
Also, the electoralism wasn't out of nowhere. It was pretty much 1/4 of what the post was saying
You are again missing the point. No one claimed that you are not allowed to vote for the lesser evil if that is something you want to do.
But you should not be voting for the way-lesser evil are asking others to do so (perhaps while continuing to emphasize that the system will still be broken)? If that's what you're arguing, could we take this to where I've replied below so the overall argument is more public and easier to follow? thx
Sorry, can you please rephrase or fix the grammar in your post above? I don't get what you are trying to say.
sorry, hopefully it'll make sense if you replace "are" with "or"
No that is not what I am arguing then. Voting for the lesser evil is often the right choice. If I was a citizen of the USA I would certainly vote for Harris tomorrow as the lesser evil, but that is a personal choice and I trust that most US based anarchists are sensible enough to do the same.
The main problem with electorialism is not the voting itself, its the spectacle around it and the waste of effort and money to promote the candidates and all the (self) gaslighting that people do. Coming to an anarchist space and doing that will at best get you ridiculed, but in this case the mod decided to show these people the door.
That’s an interesting argument I haven’t seen before.
While I obviously wouldn’t support anyone dumb enough to make a new post to explicitly promote a candidate, I think the mod basically egged these comments on in this case by going to great lengths to promote not voting for this specific candidate, thus feeding into the spectacle. I would understand if all such comparison of candidates was treated the same; however, that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
Someone commented under the post, advocating for the Green Party, and the mod left it up but deleted and banned people who replied to that person and brought up the whole “impossible to overestimate the consequences” thing.
I didn’t do anything similar to what poVoq is claiming I did, as you’re pointing out. But the people who did do that, the mod left alone, banning people who objected.
I’m done litigating this at this point, but I did get tempted into coming back to point that one thing out.
Edit: Phrasing
ehhhh while it’s close, i wouldn’t call “I would not condemn anyone who refuses to vote for genocide” outright support for the green party
I was talking about:
Oh, I didn’t see that one
Your guess is as good as mine. My feeling is the same as yours. I don't really have anything to add to this comment:
https://ponder.cat/comment/794343
I share your alarm about the censorship of discourse. It seems like there are at least three "anarchist instance" administrators in these comments who approve of it. I think they may either be jaded by a nonstop influx of trolls and noisemakers to the point that they are too tired to deal with anything disagreeable, or else they may just have not thought through enough what type of instance they want to have and what impacts this kind of policy is going to have.
If you want an answer to your question, in other words, I think you'll have to ask the people making the decisions.