EDIT: no, I don’t sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they’re losing an argument ;)

  • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Most defederation isn’t because people are disagreeing though. It’s because the people they’re defederating from are assholes.

    • ATQ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      OP is a three day old account. They know this, this meme is just them crying about it.

      • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lol right? And if you even try to engage it’s constant sealioning, memeing, and dunking.

        • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sealioning? No, you just won’t read my 10,000 word post that is copied from someone else’s pHD.

          Edit: No joke, after posting this I got this message from a Hexbear user:

          I’ve read all three volumes of [Das Kapital] around a month ago because I had an autistic urge to do it

          tell me with full seriousness that you’ve even glanced at it

          • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Have you even read Gramsci? You really can’t disagree with anything I say until you’ve read Gramsci. Sorry, I don’t make the rules!

            This is why my instance is defederated with them though. It’s just bad faith nonsense all the way down.

            • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean, it’s not a huge problem to read Marx or Gramsci before arguing about Marx or Gramsci. You don’t have to read all they wrote, of course. To form an opinion on Gadamer I don’t have to read everything he wrote.

          • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s not even a good come back. It’s like saying that they’re right because they have the power of Shrek on their side

            • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              They are used to their echo chambers and high-fiving themselves. To be fair, I wouldn’t want to mess with them if Shrek was on their side.

              • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Shrek seems pretty anti-authoritarian, so he’s automatically a lib and an enemy as far as they’re concerned.

      • acastcandream@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        To build on this point: I don’t get the whole “anti-echo chamber” thing and this demand we entertain said assholes. We select people to be friends we generally like and agree with. We often don’t associate with people we don’t like or disagree with. Why should our forums be some totally egalitarian social exposure? That’s literally never been the case ever. We read what we want to read. We talk to who we want to talk to. I’m not going to be guilted into listening to some jerk who thinks gay people shouldn’t marry and belong in hell. I don’t want to share a beer with them, I would never invite them to dinner in my home, so why should I have to deal with them living rent free in my mind because I saw some ignorant post of theirs and they called someone a slur? Hell, why should I be forced by some arbitrary, inconsistent moral code to deal with people who are simply disruptive/obnoxious?

        I have plenty of work colleagues and family I disagree with, I read sources I don’t always love. I get plenty of exposure to other ways of thinking and ideas, at least no less than anyone else does. Do I think people can go too far and literally only surround themselves with “yes men” socially? Sure. But come on. How many of us actually spend equal time with people we both agree and disagree ideologically with?

        The only people whining about defederating either don’t understand what it is or are butthurt because people are collectively showing them the door, and there is little they can do about it. 

        • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah you’re right. It’s not a binary choice between echo chamber and non-echo chamber. It’s just an open community where trolling antisocial behaviour is discouraged. If admins of an instance are encouraging antisocial behaviour then the only solution is to defederate.

        • Erika2rsis@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You might wish to be aware that your instance’s top-level domain was chosen because ML stands for “Marxism-Leninism”, and that the main admin of lemmy.ml has a photo of Mao as his profile banner. So you’re probably going to have a hard time convincing your instance’s admins to defederate from Hexbear and Lemmygrad, all things considered.

          Edit: While .ml is often used as a free TLD, lemmy.ml paid for that domain. Whether the use of the .ml TLD was then a deliberate reference to Dessalines’ outspoken political views is… evidently less certain than I thought. This was just a claim that I heard, it seemed right, I took it as fact, I repeated it here, I’m sorry. That was irresponsible.