Anarchy is very cool, until someone has the wrong opinion.

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.

From my experience, no moderator enjoys the job. And the job is tougher than you think.

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.

I'm well aware of the challenges, having modded several communities. Which is exactly why I would never do the thing that so many people here do and make themselves the mods of 20+ political communities.

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 @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com for rm'ing bigotry and not letting childish anarchist free speech ideals cause lemmy.dbzer0.com to be a nazi bar 🥂

This is very true - I usually refer to it as "BOFH behavior". I think it stems from many people who end up hosting or moderating feeling that they themselves have been marginalised before so "now they're going to show them!".

A great example is a Mastodon instance where if you don't agree with the site's admin they'll block you at the server level instead of from their personal account. The belief is that if they have an opinion that opinion must then be enforced for everyone else under their control too.

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 have to lick the correct footwear.

Buffet Anarchists.

I just copied from the link you shared. 🤷🏻‍♂️

But even in this context, who were you degrading and why?

Looking at you, leftymemes

ugh

groupthink central, do NOT divert an inch from the state sanctioned opinions, OR ELSE

They sure love the powertrip tho, which more than makes up for it

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.

"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"

"WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES"

Oh. That's not anarchy, that's somebody being an asshole.

I haven’t degraded anyone. My focus is on the contradiction of using the language of liberation to justify the mechanics of control.

Lemmy has a lot of performative anarchy: putting on the badass sunglasses of a rebel only to act as a gatekeeper for a specific set of permitted thoughts. When someone claims to be an anarchist but their first instinct is to use centralized power to silence anyone who doesn't follow an ideological script, they haven't abolished authority, they've just claimed it for themselves.

True anarchy requires individual responsibility. It’s about the capacity for adults to navigate discourse through their own discernment, critical thinking and voluntary association rather than needing someone to pre-filter their reality. If a community can only exist by forcibly removing any voice that challenges the status quo, it isn't a functional anarchist space; it’s just a digital walled garden with a cool flag.

They banned me for asking if fascism with human rights 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 interesting discussions.

The only time people complain about rules is when they have broken them or intend to break them.

They seem upset for not being able to harass people for some reason, I'm just curious which form of harassment they feel is justified.

That's not anarchy, that's being an asshole. You are generalizing an entire group based on the actions of one person.

i think it’s okay to be authoritarian on your own channel lol.

Absolutely. But don't pretend to be an anarchist then. Be actually honest about your views and people may then (as per anarchist thought) choose for themselves if they want to get on board with that or not.

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.

This is such a fascist take.

"If you speak out against the party then you are an enemy of the people"

"If you do not subjugate under Sharia then you are an infidel"

Calling names doesn't change the structural reality I'm pointing out: that there are a lot of people using 'anarchy' as a mask for top-down, centralized authority.

I'm not attacking anarchism. I AM an anarchist who is tired of seeing it appropriated by authoritarians.

That's not at all what I am saying. I think you may have become the thing you are raging against.

That is literally most of the left wing lgtbq subs here. If you imply any sort of nuance you are banned from /r/pyongyang.

It's very much /r/conservative for the left.

Lemmy has a lot of performative anarchy:

thank you. That goes for all the lefty subs. I'm deeply involved with the leftist movement in my country, on a direct political level (I was an elected official two terms back, and am running again this cycle), and the amount of narcissistic performative ego-bullshit and echo chamber group think on here is jarring to me. Free speech and free thought and discussion and exploration of ideas and back and forth is NOT allowed here, it's pure emotional outrage gatekeeping and censorship, and if you don't stay in line you will be mobbed and reported over instances to have you silenced. I feel sometimes like online leftist space is like MAGA only with different talking points.

The lack of self insight is just astounding. This is literally what this post is about. Your black and white thinking and talking points mirrors that of MAGA. You just randomly happened to choose another set of beliefs, but you are every single bit as dogmatic and clueless.

Then I think instead of saying "This type of people do this bad thing", maybe phrase it as "doing this goes against the values of the people you claim to be a part of".

Dbshitters are alt-left and should be treated in the same way as any libertarian nutjob.

Incorrect. There have been plenty of cases where an observer criticizes existing rules and their application due to inherent bias rather than an unfavorable interaction.

People who see wrongdoing and act to stop them without personal gain do exist.

I find this hilarious because you keep raging about people calling someone fascist for not sharing the exact same opinion, yet that's exactly what you're doing, accusing me of being something I'm not because you won't take the time to understand what I'm saying.

You're right. I suppose I should have said, you don't complain about rules that you agree with. But generally, when someone's on here complaining about being silenced and specifically quotes "People should not be harassed for these reasons:" I'd bet it was because they harassed somebody for one of those reasons and they feel that they should be able to do that.

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?

Some of those who moderate postses!

Your logic relies on a cherrypicked take of the anarchist code of conduct to manufacture a smear. You selectively cited the list of prohibited behaviors while deliberately ignoring the sections that protect rational discourse. By removing that context, you’ve created a false binary: either one submits to YOUR specific method of centralized policing, or they are a bigot who wants to harass marginalized groups. Which is exactly the kind of behavior I'm criticizing. Waving the anarchist flag because of the good parts (anti-bigotry) while ignoring the difficult parts (personal responsibility, critical thinking).

and not letting childish anarchist free speech ideals

It's ironic you state it like this, since we are an explicitly anarchist server ;)

I really, really hope that having rules against molesting kids aren't the only thing keeping you from doing it.

Lol I literally tagged you as a user who generalizes groups of people unfairly.

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.

( :

_ /\ _

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.

It's anarchy in here!

I really, really, hope that you can understand that for some percentage of the population, morality isn't a guardrail, & that has been visible for millenia.

The person you're replying-to isn't the only person in the world, & evidence is that without coercive-force & enforcement & enforced-accountability, then DarkTriad IS GOING TO rule the world, no matter what, & making-believing isn't going to prevent that.

It isn't "mere coincidence" that NOT fighting organized-crime ends-up with them running the territory, and it being impossible to root them out.

Ask northern Mexico how it went for them with their insufficient-enforcement paradigm, & then they lost control of the territory, & can't get it back.

IF you have an immune-system, THEN you systematically assault & kill pathogens, within your own body.

THAT is the fundamental-fact of viability in natural, competitive ecologies, inhabited by pathogens, parasites, cancers, & their equivalents.

All the people who live in goddamn making-believing that "utopia is the natural default: all we have to do is remove all structure, & it will spontaneously arise, blessing all of our lives" are fucking incompetent at knowing actual-human-nature & actual-human-history.

Go without an immune-system, with AIDS, & no medication, & see how long it takes for pathogens to destroy your life.

Will you live multiple months? Your avg remaining lifespan should be somewhere between 1/30th & 1/100th of the average human lifespan, right? Something like that.

If, after they've done that, THEN they'd have validity to stand-on, about no civil-immune-system being required, except that they'd be gone, just as their making-believing wants us gone/nonviable.

"Snakes in Suits" had a perfect vignette in it:

a psychopath who'd been let out on a daypass butchered-up somebody.

they couldn't understand why that was a problem, because it had been ages since they'd done it last-time!!

Utopian morons who pretend that diversity never could extend to THAT kind of diversity, get other-people slaughtered.

And that isn't tolerable.

IF somebody wants to live in lala-land, THEN it is THER lives which ought be available for the monsters to butcher, NOT random innocent others.

Won't-grow-up should automatically get one removed from authority, including voting-authority.

This race, humankind, isn't viable, unless it grows-the-fuck-up, quickly.

& if it won't, then the universe is going to be scoured-of-it by next century.

All because ignorance is "more comfy" than growing TF up, .. & in the deathmatch between the 2, humankind sides with ignorance, obliterating upright-objective-integrity.

Bring it on: universe's LAW is Natural Selection, & we pretend we know reality, but our behavior contradicts what we say, consistently.

Universe is the only judge of whether any of us exist next century, NOT our making-believing.

Sorry to be absolutely fed-up with won't-think, no matter how fashionable & politically-acceptable it is, but humankind's on the traintracks, and the rumbling of the oncoming-train is thrumming the rails, now.

_ /\ _

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.

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.

( :

_ /\ _

I’ve seen better moderation in .ml instances.

You’re right, predators exist, and ignoring that is dangerous. But coercive systems don’t solve the root problem; they just move it around. Prisons don’t stop abuse, they concentrate it. Cops don’t end corruption, they institutionalize it. The illusion is that punishment equals justice, when really, it just perpetuates the cycle of suffering: hurt people hurt people, and systems that rely on domination will always produce more of both.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences. It’s consequences without hate and domination. A world where harm is met with accountability and prevention at the root level, not exile and fear of punishment. The question shouldn't be "How do we punish?" but "How did we fail this person, and how do we stop failing each other?" That’s not softness. That’s seeing through the delusion of separation, the idea that "monsters" are a different species, not products of the same broken systems we all inherit. It's the admission that IF NOT FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR GENETIC MAKEUP AND YOUR ENVIRONMENT, you would be exactly as dangerous and harmful.
True safety doesn’t come from bigger cages. It comes from communities that refuse to abandon their own, even the difficult ones.

And yes there are cases where the only answer is to keep someone harmful separate from the rest but it's possible to do that out of love and care towards those that they would harm, NOT out of hate towards them as a demonized "other". I'm talking about being pre-emptive, which requires ability for people to have open discourse. It requires the ability to rationally look at horrible behavior and address the causes.

*Tom Morello has entered the chat