Submitted 2 months ago by Voidian@lemmy.dbzer0.com to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
Anarchy is very cool, until someone has the wrong opinion.
unmoderated internet spaces are quickly overrun with bigotry, csam, and spam.
if, in the name of “free speech”, you only moderate the csam and spam, the space will be primarily occupied by people looking for a forum that welcomes bigotry.
respect to dbzer0 for rm’ing bigotry and not letting childish anarchist free speech ideals cause lemmy.dbzer0.com to be a nazi bar 🥂
It’s a misunderstanding of anarchy to equate it with either total chaos or total control. True anarchism is about opposing coercive authority, not creating a new, rigid authority that dictates what discourse is acceptable.
You can absolutely oppose bigotry and harm (which are coercive actions) without resorting to silencing anyone who doesn’t conform to a specific ideological viewpoint. Genuine community defense is about voluntary association and preventing harassment, not about restricting the exchange of ideas.
you’re applying this to an internet community that has no real world interaction as a group. i think it’s okay to be authoritarian on your own channel lol.
Eh?
Coercive authority is how we enforce rules that not everyone agrees with. Rules like “don’t rape your kids”. The answer shouldn’t be “they get their own community but we kick them out of ours”, right?
Yeah the problem is that these people are deciding that “I am a nazi and I think white people are the supreme race and I want to install a fascist state” and “I don’t think China is actually socialist” are both nazi, fascist, bigoted speech, and then people like you are saying “no that doesn’t happen they only go after the bad stuff every single time and never get anything wrong”.
and not letting childish anarchist free speech ideals
It’s ironic you state it like this, since we are an explicitly anarchist server ;)
It’s ironic you state it like this, since we are an explicitly anarchist server ;)
it’s not really ironic as i am well aware that you are and i appreciate you for that :)
what i’m saying is that i’m glad that, despite obviously being a (fellow!) proponent of freedom of expression, you haven’t fallen victim to the childish line of thought which leads some people to let their spaces become nazi bars. so: thanks!
They banned me for asking if fascism with human right could be possible.
The interesting part is that it could be that despite the west’s support for human rights we could already be in a form of fascism. But that discussion could’t be had because the question already triggered a ban.
So I think banning helps to keep an instance clean but it also prevents intereting discussions.
Migrants and refugees are under constant attack throughout the west. The US has secret police racially profiling, beating, killing, illegally kidnapping and disappearing people. Civil rights are rapidly being restricted and rolled back. Israel does a genocide and bombs every county in it’s vicinity while the west offers it’s boots, bombs, and blessings.
The west doesn’t support human rights, and the fascists are already in power.
ml retard praising the dbshitters, how unsurprising.
Go lick Putin’s boots you traitorous turd.
Cope
People keep setting up these Punching bars and then get mad when their patrons get Punched.
Okay, I’ll bite. I need to add to my block list anyway.
Y’all have heard of the Nazi Bar problem, right? Paradox of intolerance? Which turns out not to be a paradox after all? You should def look that one up rather than waiting for me to type it all out.
People like to refer to the paradox of tolerance but always skip out on the inconvenient bit:
““Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
— In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.””
If you are not able to rationally argue why we shouldn’t be bigoted, I don’t know what to tell you.
it’s not that people can’t, but spaces which have unlimited tolerance for sealions suggesting that it’s necessary to are likely to have less interesting discussions than spaces which do not 🙄
i think people not knowing how to actually win an argument against a bigot is exactly the reason there are so many these days shit’s easy. not that they’ll admit defeat but getting them babbling irrational nonsense takes very little debating skills. and when they inevitably start throwing ad hominems, then the mods have legitimate grounds to kick them out.
i mean, seems you’re also conveniently skipping over the part that says:
as long as we can counter them by rational argument
it’s right there in the text:
popper states outright, that there are some ideologies and by extension people, that straight-up cannot be argued with. these, therefore, must be excluded from the community, and thereby form the limit to tolerance that must be enforced.
people really love to misinterpret popper…
what goes along nicely with the tolerance of paradox is the quote about anti-semites being entirely aware of how absurd their position truly are:
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
take both popper and sartre together into consideration of a larger context and it becomes abundantly obvious that a certain minimum of intolerance is strictly necessary for a functional society.
what happens when all checks on speech are removed can be clearly seen in the rotting corpses of facebook and twitter… it’s disastrous.
Just to let you know before I block you, I didn’t read your “reasonable disagreement” of a wall of text
We are all bigoted.
The idea is we have institutions that minimize our bigotry by not being subject to the judgements of any one particular person and their biases.
Lemmy is a Tankie Bar.
Okay, that’s just funny. Hi friend
Y’all have heard of the Nazi Bar problem, right?
Bullshit genetic or reductio ad hitlerum fallacy. Carried to its logical conclusion, anything tainted by Nazis (eg, the universe) is a Nazi bar. Have you considered finding yourself another universe to inhabit, since this one is irredeemably tainted? While we may argue the universe is far too vast to be a “Nazi bar”, so is the internet or any “platform”.
Worse, censoring ideas gives them covert power. It doesn’t discredit them or strip them of power like challenging them in a public forum could. It’s also a disservice to better ideas
Censorship is incompetent advocacy: it mistakes suppressing the expression of bad ideas for effective advocacy that directly discredits bad ideas, develops intellectual growth, and steers toward better ideas.
Paradox of intolerance?
The bogus social media version subverting the original message or the real one?
Image
:::spoiler text alternative
By philosopher Karl Popper[^popper-source]
You think you know the Popper Paradox thanks to this? (👉 comic from pictoline.com)
Karl Popper: I never said that!
Popper argued that society via its institutions should have a right to prohibit those who are intolerant.
Karl Popper: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
For Popper, on what grounds may society suppress the intolerant? When they “are not prepared to meet on the level of rational argument” “they forbid their followers to listen to rational argument … & teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols”. The argument of the intolerably intolerant is force & violence.
We misconstrue this paradox at our peril … to the extent that one group could declare another group ‘intolerant’ just to prohibit their ideas, speech & other freedoms.
Grave sign: “The Intolerant” RIP
Underneath it lies a pile of symbols for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Black power.
A leg labeled tolerance kicks the Gay Pride symbol into the pile.
Muchas gracias a @lokijustice y asivaespana.com ::: Karl Popper opposed censorship/argued for free inquiry & open discourse.
I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
Censorship (or willfully blinding ourselves to information) plays no part in suppressing authoritarianism.
Only cowards fear words. Words are not the danger. It’s the dangerous people whose words we fail to discredit.
[^popper-source]: Source: The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl R. Popper
So how is that different when it’s online vs offline?
You know that anarchism doesn’t mean no rules right? It just means no rulers, but that’s not how it works on Lemmy or any social media of this type for that matter.
It just means no rulers, but that’s not how it works
…anywhere in reality.
Humans spent thousands of years without rulers. Also, look at all the grassroots organizations trying to stop fascism in America right now.
Leaders are dispensable AND disposable. We do not need them.
fascists aren’t allowed on leftist spaces. no good comes from that.
Are you really comparing a completely optional forum to a society where people can and will put guns at you?
“They don’t let me spread transphobic rhetoric in this optional community online, literally 1984!”
I have a pretty low opinion of moderators generally.
In the vast majority of cases, the people who actually want to be moderators are precisely the worst kinds of people to do the job.
Of course there are exceptions but all too often they’re doing it because they like the power and attention.
I think many people feel this way, and I think in many cases another thing that plays into it is not realising the amount of good moderators, because good moderation usually doesn’t make as much noise as when it’s bad.
If I think of all the communities in lemmy/piefed I like, the perfect/near perfect moderation from my browsing heavily outweighs anything problematic.
How do you see overly heavy opinion based moderation if you’re never the target of it? You don’t. You just see communities that are weirdly same-think. Though I bet you’d jist dismiss it as a consequence of the fediverse already self-selecting for a certain type, but that is wrong.
There is bad moderation all over the place, but you don’t see it, because many mods/admins prefer to ban and delete than to let the vote system do its job.
I remember I was an administrator, and the moderator threatened to ban me. That was fun, I was like “Oh no, please don’t”. And I just played along.
As an administrator, I had only 2 modes: Not sure, can’t ban this person without more evidence, and “that is a liability, shut down the server!”. So I didn’t react to most things that were done, even if they were technically against the rules. Then when I became the owner, I set a pol for people to decide if I should just delete the server, because I knew I didn’t have the time to make sure some truly heinous stuff does not happen.
Sounds like you’d make an excellent moderator!
Because who do you think moderators and admins are? Literally just people trying to look after computer systems for the benefit of everyone who wants to use and support that system.
It is very thankless and unrelenting work. I’ve done it for decades and right now I’m not doing it at all because it’s too exhausting to have as a background thread with the rest of my family life.
If you have a low opinion of mods then seriously, try being one for a few years. It’s a hard sell without much good about it. Mods are just people taking turns at a job very few actually want to do.
Volunteer admins and moderators are really why we have any public internet at all.
Yeah that’s fair.
Being an administrator is different, you don’t volunteer for that task because you like the attention.
I’ve done it for decades and right now I’m not doing it at all because it’s too exhausting to have as a background thread with the rest of my family life.
I feel this. I used to volunteer for some local groups but don’t presently as I have a young family and it’s all consuming.
You have to lick the correct footwear.
Some of those who moderate postses!
*Tom Morello has entered the chat
Bert Kreischer has been banned from the chat
Which of these best describes your opinion that the Anarchists disapprove of?:
Sexism,
Racism,
White Supremacy (or any ethnic-supremacy),
Homophobia (or any sexuality-phobia),
Fascism,
Genocide,
Drug-phobia,
Ethnic-, gender-, sexuality-, ableist-, etc., based slurs,
Oath-taking or pledge-taking.
Did you intentionally skip over the parts that you don’t like in Anarchist thought?
Degrading, disrespecting, or insulting another person or group of people, because of their : Gender or Gender Identity, Ethnicity, Immigrant status, Religion, Sexuality, Language, Physical appearance or body size, Substance or medicinal use, Disability, Age, Acceptance of any unfavorable or disfavorable group, whether this group is political, economic, social, or cultural.
Buffet Anarchists.
But even in this context, who were you degrading and why?
I just copied from the link you shared. 🤷🏻♂️
“If you are not as extreme in your views against these things as I am, then that means you are in favor of those things and will be banned”
Oh. That’s not anarchy, that’s somebody being an asshole.
SuperEars
Critical Thinking.
( & your selective-framing which leaves-out the actual-problem, can go eat rocks )
Archy is the hierarchy that civilization uses as its skeleton & nervous-system.
Hierarchy was the original, & the Hierarch was the original top-person.
Got a brain in your body??
THAT is archy.
The people who pretend that no-archy is the ideal, ignore the blunt fact that within their own bodies, they eradicate anarchy, allowing ONLY archy to operate, because it is orders-of-magnitude more effective & viable & healthy.
& they pretend that anarchy ought rule the world.
Parent-child relationship: ought that be archy, or no-archy?? Toddler wants to take the car for a spin, & parent-boss won’t allow that?? Archy.
Ought aviation be unregulated, in anarchy, or regulated, in archy?
How about licensed surgeons? No-archy/no-regulation, XOR archy/regulations?
How about manufacturing? No-regs/no-archy? or regs/archy?
The ideological won’t-know/intentional-ignorance in both right & left is stunning.
And some of us are sick of all of it.
Yoga, not communist-party-imperialism, not no-archy-fuzzbrainedness-which-ignores-how-even-our-bodies-work, & not personal-imperialism/fascism, but yoga, the harnessing & binding in efficient & effective coherent-directional-harmony, is the right way.
( :
_ /\ _
lol
If you’re losing the battle of wisdom against a toddler, perhaps there is a reason to listen to that toddler…
Aannndddd… people “wonder why” nothing changes, when THEIR pack/herd/tribe gains power, or when another’s does: it just goes 'round & 'round & 'round, again.
Until one has fundamentally altered one’s own unconscious-mind,
altering one’s own nature,
then the same nature as what created the problems we’re caught-in, is all one has to wield.
“physician, 1st heal thyself” is the key, but nobody’s got the guts to enforce the deep transformation.
( & I’m saying that while having failed to break unconscious-ignorance from this-incarnation/life, thus-far, myself, for decades.
It isn’t easy, but if one never tries, it’ll never have more than 0% chance of happening.
it’d be easier in a culture which accepted such transformations as valid, fersure, but that got eradicated by materialism, didn’t it? )
aka Spot-on, Voidan@lemmy-dbzer0.com , spot-on.
( :
_ /\ _
Aannndddd… yeah. The “round and round” is what happens when we mistake performative rebellion for actual change. Most of us know the system’s broken, but we’d rather rage at the symptoms than admit we’re part of the pattern. You’re dead right about the “physician, heal thyself” bit, except nobody wants to do the boring work of actually examining why they crave control, whether it’s over a Lemmy community or a state. Easier to just slap a label on the ‘enemy’ and call it a day.
True rebellion against fascism starts with the self.
“If everyone just has a Buddha epiphany then we can finally break free from authoritarianism” is certainly a take
It’s not possible, because anyone who realizes “I am the nazi” and enforces justice, is dead, or worse. You won’t be hearing these voices of reason, unless they did well from the start.
Anybody who sees Authority as a responsability is naturally averse to having it because they would feel the weight of it and would feel bad if, whilst holding Authority, they made a mistake and others got in some way hurt because of that.
Those who see Authority as power to advance something (be it their own personal upsides or some idea they believe in) with little or no feeling of responsability towards others (be it not all directly or they’ve suppressed it by convincing themselves their actions are somehow “for the greater good” hence any bad they do with the authority has that grand excuse to salve their conscience), have no such aversion to holding authority.
That posture towards authority of people of the second kind applies more broadly to all manner of things which serve to pressure, convince or manipulate others (Authority is generally power force something on others) so of course they also have no aversion to using other such tools, including using ideology to manipulate others, and sometimes that means passing themselves as somebody who holds a certain ideology, and that includes Anarchism.
So yeah, you’re going to find that certain people who parrot Anarchist talk aren’t in fact people whose Principles mean they’re naturally Anarchist but rather people being Performative Anarchists in order to fit-in and manipulate others, drive by entirelly different Principles, and such people are absolutelly pro-Authority as long as they’re in control of it.
In summary: there are two types of people who sound Anarchist
IMHO, the best way to spot the second kind from the first is to look for the often repetition of common slogans and having a superficial level of ideology with no actual tracing back to personal principles since they learned the ideology at an intellectual level rather than being drived by their Principles - i.e. what feels Right and what feels Wrong - to that formal ideology.
By thew way, this method to identify the real ones from the performers also works for all other ideologies and even things like Faith.
Just wanted to say this is a fantastic take. 100% agree.
The anarchist code of conduct
Just tell them that moral absolutism benefits the status-quo.
Because it’s true. It does. I think it’s actually a psyop by the capitalists to prevent socialism ever taking a foothold or affecting their money. Capitalists are afraid of positive incremental change, so they tricked leftists into being afraid of it too.
the spiciest take
nobody wants to change the game, they’re just mad that they’re not winning it
I don’t love moderating my communities at all. I barely even read the reports. 🤷♂️
I mean this may be decentralized but its still social media. Its gonna be a cesspool by nature of social media.
This
the shit always rises to the top.
and to find the good stuff you have to wade through it.
The same people who rage against authority and advocate prison abolition seem to love becoming “dungeon masters.”
Toddler thoughts
Mommy and daddy keep going on about horizontalism but then they make me go to bed even when I don’t want to >:(
No one is making you be here. You can click a button and start your own community and if your modding policies are that much better people will switch. …or none or very few of the users like what you say and the mod just happens to be the one responsible for telling you.
Is it frustrating to be part of the outgroup? Sure. Is it frustrating to have an opinion people dislike or don’t think is worth leaving their ingroup for? Sure. But that’s just called being a weirdo. Lots of people are weirdos. I’m a weirdo. In fact it’s often hard for me to get certain things done or find certain products. Bigelow doesn’t stock my favorite flavor in most stores because it’s not popular enough. That’s not oppression that’s just being unpopular.
Being a weirdo isn’t for the faint of heart. Dialectal behavior therapy changed my life and teaches four ways to approach a problem. 1. Stop seeing it as a problem. 2. Fix the problem (conform). 3. Accept the problem. 4. Stay whiny. I tend to vacillate between 1 and 3 (sigh sadly and order my tea online) but I spend little time bitching online about how it’s other people’s fault.
what’s frustrating the most is how people hate you for factual true opinions, because those truths don’t align with their delusional worldview.
factual true opinions
oh god that’s it; you’re an utterly insufferable person. And learning how to constructively approach injustice by conserving and directing your energy towards actions that will make the most real difference is a core goal of the therapy. Either put in the effort to become someone people want to be around or accept people don’t want to be around you.
This reads like a freeze peach kinda thought.
All communities have moderation, depending on the desired results.
-Anarchist instances nuke Nazi and Tankie viewpoints because they consider them authoritarian (see db0 and quokk)
-Tankie instances nuke Nazi and Lib viewpoints because we consider them authoritarian (see hexbear and lemmygrad)
-Lib instances nuke Tankie viewpoints because they consider them authoritarian (see .world)
-Nazi instances nuke Tankie viewpoints because they’re nazis (see feddit and piefed)
As a tankie, I take pride that Nazis and Libs nuke my content, and consider it sad that anarchists don’t reflect on why anarchist content doesn’t get nearly as nuked from mainstream capitalism.
Nazi instances nuke Tankie viewpoints because they’re nazis (see feddit and piefed)
Can you tell me what nazi viewpoints are promoted on Piefed please? Be specific.
Rimu considers the viewpoint that the 1930s famine in the soviet union being a combination of mismanagement and adverse weather conditions, rather than a deliberate targeting of ethnic groups, to be “genocide denial” and thus worthy of total censorship. This is despite the fact that the mainstream contemporary opinion on the 1930s famine even among reputable liberal historians is that it was as I said.
For instance, Mark Tauger wrote:
[data] indicate that the famine was real, the result of a failure of economic policy, of the ‘revolution from above,’ rather than of a ‘successful’ nationality policy against Ukrainians or other ethnic groups.
Tauger believes it was a failure of economic policy, not an intentional attack on ethnic Ukrainians. The 1930s famine was a combination of drought, flooding, and mismanagement. Further, the Kulaks, wealthy bourgeois farmers, magnified matters by killing their own crops in the midst of a famine rather than letting the Red Army collectivize them.
This, to Rimu, is considered to be genocide denial. This is despite Wikipedia’s own acknowledgement that “scholars continue to debate whether the human-made Soviet famine was a central act in a campaign of genocide,[169] or a tragic byproduct of rapid Soviet industrialization and the collectivization of agriculture.[170]:”
Other historians such as Michael Ellman consider the Holodomor a crime against humanity, but do not classify it as a genocide.[181] Economist Steven Rosefielde and historian Robert Conquest consider the death toll to be primarily due to state policy, and poor harvests.[182] Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Conquest was granted access to the Soviet state archives alongside other western academics.[183] In 2004, Wheatcroft published a private correspondence that he had with Conquest. In the exchange, Conquest wrote that he is now of the opinion that the Holodomor was not purposefully inflicted by Stalin but “what I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put ‘Soviet interest’ other than feeding the starving first – thus consciously abetting it”.[184] In an interview recorded in 2006 Conquest stated the Holodomor should be recognized as an attack on the Ukrainian people and discussed problems with the use of the term genocide.[185]
Robert Davies, Stephen Kotkin, Stephen Wheatcroft and J. Arch Getty reject the notion that Stalin intentionally wanted to kill Ukrainians, but conclude that Stalinist policies and widespread incompetence among government officials set the stage for famine in Ukraine and other Soviet republics.[186][187][108] Anne Applebaum believes that the famine was planned to undermine Ukrainian identity but discusses how shifts in understanding of the term genocide mean that it is more difficult to apply now that it was when the term was initially conceived. Another argument she puts forward is that the question of genocide is not as important as it once was because it was a proxy debate about Ukraine and Ukrainians’ right to exist, a right which no longer needs historic justification.[188]
Further, Rimu repeats the far-right McCain Institute talking points about supposed “organ harvesting” in China towards the far-right Falun Gong cult:
And this is despite the fact [that no supporting evidence for this conspiracy theory has been found](Here’s an example of investigating claims made by the Falun Gong about organ harvesting, with no evidence found, even from western investigation.)
Overall, Rimu in particular promotes an unquestioning, dogmatic view of history that goes well beyond what’s considered definitive even in the west. Rimu also therefore uses the admin position of PieFed.social to silence any reasonable, developed dissent, no matter how well-sourced.
Was that specific enough?
Sure. I can point you to it: I was threatened with physical violence by a nationalist and I got banned for it.
Isn’t a tankie an authoritarian communist or am I getting wires crossed here? I thought the term was coined from the 56 stamping out of the Hungarian revolution with tanks by authoritarians… Not sure that’s something I’d be proud of but please correct me if I’m wrong.
Tankie is a left-punching slur against Marxist-Leninists, which I choose to appropriate. We call liberals “libs”, not dronies despite them supporting Obama even when he was murdering civilians in the middle east using drones. As for the stomping of the antisemitic pogroms in the post-fascist 1956 Hungary, I refer you to comrade Cowbee since they are a lot more well-versed in the topic than I am.
I’m proud of Marxism-Leninism, the ideology that uplifted a billion people from destitute poverty and colonialism towards industrialization, grantez universal healthcare and free education to the highest level, guarantees jobs and housing to every person, tripled life expectancy where it was allowed to exist, and saved Europe from Nazism.
I think “being able to select which community(ies) one is part of and having the ability to opt out” vs being born into it is a key differentiator.
Fwiw, I’m not part of any moderating teams.
It’s true.
Just try having a discussion about Age or ID Verification or the Brave Browser and see how quickly you get dogpiled and downvoted to hell if what you think isn’t the accepted orthodoxy.
If people are trolling, they can get banned and troll elsewhere. That’s common sense, right?
And one might say they didn’t mean to troll, which just means they need to lurk moar.
Not true for everyone. But sure, I understand the idea. Its just what i know people who hate authority and because of that, they know how to act with compassion instead.
in misanthropy we call this being human
… You realise that that’s because a forum moderator has no meaningful amount of actual power, right?
It’s all about powerplay and finding the best rhetoric that plays best with your level of charisma to try to whitewash it with. Sometimes it’s also used as a filter because it inherently attract a certain type of person in those communities sort of like r/conservative in reddit attracts a certain type of person. The modern social network is a lot about being able to create and grow your own cults on demand.
definitely_AI@feddit.online 2 months ago
Looking at you, leftymemes
ugh
groupthink central, do NOT divert an inch from the state sanctioned opinions, OR ELSE
yucandu@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It’s all fun and games until you say that China is wearing socialism as a cloak the same way America wears Christianity or Israel wears anti-semitism.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 month ago
People’s takes on China here are so clueless and weird.
Xi is essentially a dictator at this point. Like Putin, he has systematiclly consolidated power over the years and increasingly removed any federation of government power that was more in line with socialist ideals and power structures. China was more socialist 30 years ago than it is today, and the USSR was far less centralized than Russia is now
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 2 months ago
I’ve seen better moderation in .ml instances.
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 2 months ago
Uh oh. One or the other found you, here comes the brigade!
Image
Wataba@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Dbshitters are alt-left and should be treated in the same way as any libertarian nutjob.