Hi all, thank you for reading my post. modlod link

In the 196 sub an OP was asking for advice on how to change their friends opinions which they disapprove of, because they were trying to warn them off of ‘the tankie triad’ and their friend didn’t have any issues with what they were seeing and was in fact subscribed to a number of instance already.

Clocks got banned first after suggesting that the OP try to be a genuine friend and try to find some common cause in real life rather than alienating people over abstract geopolitical factionalism:

> The original post feels like bait, but here is an authentic response. — Maybe genuinely be their friend instead of alienating them based on political flavoring. Perhaps you can be better working together to help others in your locality or communities than squandering over geopolitical matters. Swallow your frustrations, being annoyed is a part of being in a community. You can move on.

I raised the issue that censoring earnest advice as ‘tankie apologia’ and preemtively writing off any common cause/ isolating people is no way to win people over either as friends or comrades.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if ‘genuinely be their friend’ is ‘tankie apologia’ to be censored, I’m not sure you’re going to be very successful convincing anyone of anything in the real world.

I then got banned for this one, for continuing to find ‘the tankie triad’ extremely silly:

yeah that’s the context, I was just laughing because:

  1. only Lemmy users with an axe to grind call them that
  2. it sounds really silly, like they’re a nemesis to dr venture.
  3. I’m supposed to be the melodramatic one yet every day I get one-upped 😔

link

screenshot:

I’m not here to tell them how to run their comm, my position is that this is way more draconian than anything I’ve run into in any of ‘the tankie triad’. The same groups of people loudly complaining about censorship on ‘tankie’ run instances don’t seem to have a problem enforcing vague/arbitrary vibes based censorship in their spaces.

  • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I’m opposed to all inter-capitalist wars. Sounds like the real issue is that I have a nuanced take on Ukraine in my post history more so than any of the things I said in the thread.

    The advice on offer in that thread reeks of terminally online in a way that is extremely unlikely to accomplish anything productive in real life other than isolating yourself into increasingly small cliques.

    Maybe you should add “no dissent allowed” to the rules so it’s more clear that it’s a cj comm

      • AlDente@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        2 days ago

        If you’re openly saying that you don’t tolerate any dissent in your community, then it sounds like you’re acting as an authoritarian. Perhaps it’s time to ban yourself 🤔

          • AlDente@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            21 hours ago

            Even outside of this specific instance, they’re saying any dissenting opinion can result in a ban. If you think it’s normal, you can enjoy your echo chambers.

            • _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              19 hours ago

              Not tolerating tankies doesn’t make it an echo chamber any more than not tolerating nazis does. That’s such a bullshit argument, and tankies always use it. You’re probably patting yourself on the back right now, but to the rest of Lemmy you just look like a particularly satisfied idiot.

              • AlDente@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                18 hours ago

                Not tolerating tankies and not tolerating any dissent are two completely different things. I’m specifically calling out the later. When suggested to add a “no dissent rule”, the mod respond that they already had that covered. It sounds like reddit-admin kind of behavior.

                • _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  17 hours ago

                  That is not what they said, you fucking liar. They very clearly said they had a “no authoritarianism” rule. The “no dissent” bullshit was @[email protected] stupidity. At no point did they ban dissent, nor did they say they were.

                  You idiots are making up lies to argue against just because you got your little tankie feelings hurt.

                  • Canyon201@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    16 hours ago

                    why are you so hysterical about this? everyone is talking about this normally and you come in raging lol its kinda funny ngl

                  • AlDente@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    17 hours ago

                    Their exact words are still there, so there would be no point in lying about it. The exchange reads:

                    Maybe you should add “no dissent allowed” to the rules… -Diva

                    We already have a no authoritarian rule in the sidebar, so that won’t be necessary -WSYU

                    It’s may just be a joke, but it is clearly equating authoritarianism and dissent. That is all I was commenting on. I don’t care about the fate of Diva or the banning of tankies. I just thought this back and forth was funny and ironic. I hope you get the chance to relax this weekend.

        • WillStealYourUsername@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          What a truly dumb argument.

          Anyways, like many I consider it solved with the contract of tolerance. You aren’t covered by the contract anymore if you go not tolerating people. Any benefits extended to you by the contract only apply as long as you agree to be tolerant.

          We also ban for transphobia or for being a fascist. Is that banning all dissent as well?

          • AlDente@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            2 days ago

            From your other responses to this post, it seems like your primary beef with Diva was their anti-war stances in their post history. You can’t play the paradox-of-tolerance card in response to that. To make your other strawmen relatable, are you saying Diva’s comments are in any way fascist or transphobic? I haven’t seen any intolerance in Diva’s posts.

            What I’m directly responding to is the exchange with the “no dissent allowed” rule suggestion, and you basically saying you already got that covered. Squashing all dissent is authoritarian, and you referenced your “no authoritarian” rule when responding with this. I don’t believed I ever joined in one of these PTB discussions before, but this was just too much. Can you not see the irony?

            • WillStealYourUsername@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              My issue was not primarily the anti war stance, but that in combination with staunchly defending tankies. Tankies are intolerant by their very nature (as in their ideology is intolerant), and so Diva was banned for defending the intolerant and for likely being a tankie herself.

              Looking over her comments here I am less sure that she is a tankie, but she for sure thinks being one is okay and is really into defending them. Again, the point of the anti-tankie rules is to not give tankies a platform.

              • AlDente@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                2 days ago

                Sure, it’s your community, so you ban who you like. You don’t need to justify it to me.

                I tried steering the conversation back to my actual point, but it seems like all that was ignored. I thought your rule exchange was funny and incredibly ironic. You might enjoy banning any dissenting opinions, but don’t be surprised when that earns you an “authoritarian” label.

                  • AlDente@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    Absolutely, I don’t disagree at all. But by claiming to not tolerate any dissenting opinion, you are not “banning authoritarians”; instead, you are becoming the very thing you declared hatred for. I havent seen any evidence that Diva is authoritarian.

                    Instead, I’ve seen a mod openly claim that any dissenting opinions would result in a ban; and this would only result in the further developement of an echochamber.