No one is making you be here. You can click a button and start your own community or even spin up your own server 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 engaging in #4 (bitching online about how it's other people's fault).

I'm not even going to look into your specific ideology. With people who say these things I often regret finding out.

This

Mommy and daddy keep going on about horizontalism but then they make me go to bed even when I don't want to >:(

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?

it's the nature of people.

they love to dog pile on the 'outsider'. and they also love to circle up the wagons over a perceived threat.

so what happens is outsiders form their own little tightly knit and hostile tribes. social media greatly expanded the specificity by which people identify themselves. so you have raw milk nutjobs jerking each other off over their 'pasturization is an evil conspiracy to ruin our immune systems' inside their little bubbles and feeling like big smart geniuses because everyone else is an dumb sheep who has been duped by Louis Pasteur's evil invention.

what's frustrating the most is how people hate you for factual true opinions, because those truths don't align with their delusional worldview.

true, it's ultimately about popularity. And what's popular... is often stupid, wrong, and cruel. Dialectical behavior won't do anything when you are getting harassed and assaulted, and increasingly we live in a world where people are become not just disagreeing and segregating, but straight up calling violent and bloodthirsty to those they disagree with.

Lemmy is rife with very pro-violence people. Who also claim they are anti-violence. But you know, only anti-violence against the 'good' people. Violence totally col against the 'bad' people.

the shit always rises to the top.

and to find the good stuff you have to wade through it.

Just wanted to say this is a fantastic take. 100% agree.

Too many people want to argue in the sense they are a 'greater' authority than you, to try to force you into agreement with them. And generally lack any ability to genuinely reflect on themselves, their actions, or the flaws/contradictions often inherent in their ideology. So ultimately they just fall back on slogans as self-evident truths that must be preached and obeyed.

That's very different than actually reading the source material of an ideology. How many Anarchists have read Bakunin? Anytime someone claims to be anarchist I love asking them that and looking at the total look of confusion on their face...

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.

People who claim some absolute stance of non-bigotry... are basically the most likely to engage in bigotry because they deny it is even possible they could be.

People who whinge on about the the paradox of intolerance are always cunts who want to have a reason to beat people up because it makes them feel big. It's a stupid argument either way, because there is no such thing as unlimited tolerance, and no society is ever 'free'.

You have it backwards.

Rational discourse, pragmatically speaking, is discourse that starts from agreed upon premises. Anarchists thing the only rational discourse there is, is one that agrees with anarchism's superiority over other political systems of thought and organization.

And secondly, people appeal to high minded ideals like 'rational discourse' not because they practice them, but because they give them a sense of authority. Each mod of each flavor on anarchism believes theirs is the best, otherwise why would they believe in it?

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. But we can't let the facts get in the way of the ideals.

Israeli's problem is also the same, the consolidation of power in a single person that increasingly fails to manifest the democratic ideas on which it argues its cultural superiority.

when we lived in peaceful harmony with the dinosaurs.

before the evil comet fell and brought rulers upon us and the dinosaurs were forced under the earth to become lizard people.

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.

right, so if an external reality gets in the way of my feelings, I should simple ignore and or deny that it exists? if someone makes me feel bad they are bad person! such a constructive and mature way to approach other people.

I have no problem being around people who acknowledge there is a world outside of themselves. I don't get along with people who think the world is merely an extension of their feelings, or that any information that doesn't make them feel fuzzy is horrible and evil.

I mean i'm glad you don't think facts exist or reality exists outside of the thoughts in your head, and therefore nobody else is real, but most well-adjusted people don't engage in solipsism. If the acknowledgement of other people existing who are different than you is so painful, the issue isn't them. It's you.

also calling for violence isn't a constructive approach injustice, it's authoritarianism and bullying. just like you resorted to harassment and name calling in reply to my comment, per ad hominem nonsense because I said something you find upsetting and dislike. you can't create 'justice' by perpetuating injustice on other people, but if you live in a world of your own emotions, nothing like justice even exists. because justice isn't a feeling, it's a concept that is suppose to get you outside of your own monkey-brain way of thinking.

These are not Nazi viewpoints. Moreover, he doesn't "promote" them other than anyone else promoting what they say as specific users. You think anyone who believes the Holodomor was genocide is a nazi? That's your definition?

So if I held a similar position on the Holodomor, that would make me a nazi according to you?

The propogation of far-right views by PieFed users and the head dev is what @Riverside@reddthat.com is referring to.

You think believing the Holodomor is a genocide is inherently far-right? I don't think either of them are inherently far-right (especially not the former). Also, by "users" you specifically mean Rimu here. Would others hold the same opinion? Sure. But they also do so across the Threadiverse - not specifically on piefed, or piefed.social in specific. If you're going to accuse Piefed of being specifically far-right on this basis, then you have to also throw that at most other instance - which they didn't do.

Can you answer why you’re insistent on analyzing processes outside of the context they exist in? If you’re not going to respond to my criticisms of your metaphysical outlook from last time, then defend it, otherwise all I can do is continue to point out that you keep trying to slice away context and view processes in a vacuum that doesn’t exist and doesn’t represent reality accurately as a consequence.

It seems to me to be self-evident that it just isn't nazi to claim the holodomor was a genocide. You may think it's wrong, incorrect, perhaps suggestive of unjustified prejudice against communism - but it just isn't nazi. It's a nasty vile smear to throw at people. No context makes it so (not even remotely sure what you're referring to in this case). Rimu is not anti-semitic, Rimu is not a white supremacist, Rimu does not support a one-party authoritarian dictatorship.

And even if it was: If you’re going to accuse Piefed of being specifically far-right or nazi on this basis, then you have to also throw that at most other instances - which the other user didn’t do here.

It's incredibly obvious that they are talking about right-wing views in general, and you're laser-focusing on the German Nazi Party. That's why discussion with you never gets anywhere.

No, it's not. I see we've degraded from "nazi" to "far-right" to "right-wing" in a few posts too. And if Rimu is right wing, then almost everyone on the fediverse is right-wing according to you - not just piefed, or piefed.social. And sure, I understand that you can interpret nazism in a wider context - but even if you do, Rimu is nowhere near that.

Can you answer why you’re insistent on analyzing processes outside of the context they exist in? If you’re not going to respond to my criticisms of your metaphysical outlook from last time, then defend it, otherwise all I can do is continue to point out that you keep trying to slice away context and view processes in a vacuum that doesn’t exist and doesn’t represent reality accurately as a consequence.

I don't understand what context you're supposedly referring to here that somehow justfies hurling outright baseless lies against people.

They aren't baseless, Rimu and many PieFed users are deeply reactionary. Contextualization is important because it's necessary for correct analysis.

Rimu is no different to most people on the Threadiverse, or the culture or administration of most instances across the fediverse. If he is "deeply reactionary" then that would make most people and instances on the threadiverse "deeply reactionary" - by your terms of reference. In any case, he's nowhere near being far-right or a nazi. That's genuinely just a hateful lie. You won't convince me out of this. This is a truly nasty accusation and speaks to your incredibly low character.

Nah, the fact that you cape for racists and conspiracy theorists speaks to your character.

I reject your premise of racism. Conspiracy theorism isn't inherently nazi even if an accurate descriptor of someone in some context.

We've already been over this, I disagree with your rejection and stated why before. We don't need to go through this again.

Banned from that specific community, or banned from the instance entirely? Because being banned from the instance, which did happen, was not for that reason.

Sorry, do you hold the same accusations to lemmy.zip too, as the user is from that instance? Are they also not nazis by your logic?

Also, are you saying anyone who looks past any threat, or inciendary language or violent rhetoric of any kind to someone who is a communist, no matter the specific context is automatically a nazi?

If the threat of violence from another user directed at me had happened in a .zip instance and I had gotten banned instead of them, I’d be making the same accusation.

So you don't apparently expect lemmy.zip to respond to users like that, but you do in piefed.social? What? Because the lemmy.zip user did it on a remote community? Also, how do you know the instance ban and community ban are directly connected?

Also, whether or not you characterise it as a threat (I think it's unsavoury and emotive and violent rhetoric, but not really a threat as such unless you specifically plan to go to Poland or something) - it doesn't automatically make them or someone a nazi.

I'm pointing out your double standards when judging instances, and your accusation - even if entirely true, doesn't remotely meet the threshold of being nazi at all.

So anyone who is rude to a communist is automatically a nazi? Is that your genuine position?

And can you tell me why you don't also make these same claims to lemmy.zip?

As I said: Also, whether or not you characterise it as a threat (I think it’s unsavoury and emotive and violent rhetoric, but not really a threat as such unless you specifically plan to go to Poland or something) - it doesn’t automatically make them or someone a nazi.

And you're not answering my question: And can you tell me why you don’t also make these same claims to lemmy.zip since the user is from there?

That's up to you, but you've made a bunch of assumptions in everything here.

I’ll write it one more time: if an instance bans a communist but not the person threatening said person with violence, it’s a Nazi-friendly community

Then this equally applies to lemmy.zip, presumably. But apparently it doesn't.

Ah yes, the beforetimes, how could I forget.

... You realise that that's because a forum moderator has no meaningful amount of actual power, right?

If they don't have meaningful power, then neither do people who would abuse any space they're in, rendering moderating wholly pointless. But people sure don't like that idea.

When I said that morality isn't a guardrail, I meant there are people who avoid chopping others up because they don't want to be interfered-with by enforcement, but they have no intrinsic problem with chopping others up because others are only meat-marionettes ( broken mirror-neuron-system people )

It isn't a question of being wholistic, it is a problem that they can't understand why anybody would have any problem with butchering human lives .. and that's a different-category.

Please read "Snakes in Suits".

The stuff I'd read was of other books, but the quote I saw from that was perfect.

_ /\ _

Archy means hierarchy.

AnArchy means no-archy/nohierarchy.

It is shameful that I didn't clue-in that anarchist-sects each have their-own unquestionable-definition for "anarchy".

The ones who hold that anarchy means they have the right to butcher others, the ones who hold that anarchy means no-hierarchy-socialist-consensus-archy, the ones who mean libertarian-independence-and-no-coherent-action, etc.

It's sickening.

YOU hold-to A definition of anarchy.

YOU hold that nobody is allowed to have contradictory-definition of anarchy.

YOU are boss of that-meaning, then..

Good for you.

The "anarchy means there is no boss, no bossed" sect ignores that the parent-child relationship is that.

Good for them.

I'm fed-up-with being gaslit by ideologues, both left & right.

As vertebrates prove, hierarchy allows complex-organism to be more effective than non-hierarchical-organism ( sea-sponges have 2 types of cells: interior & surface, so they're the least-complex multicellular organisms I know-of ).

As complex-civilizations also prove, hierarchy is prerequisite to effectiveness.

That doesn't mean class-based-validity, it does mean that decomposition-of-problems/obstacles/work into smaller problems, done by smaller-teams, etc, is intrinsically required for civilization-effectveiness.

Having more-experience be in charge of less-experience is anti-anarchy, isn't it?

Having greater-responsibility in charge of less-responsible-ones is anti-anarchy, isn't it?

Having the most-domain-competent people in charge of things is anti-anarchy, isn't it?

It's making hierarchy arbitrary in the eyes of all who reject that domain-experience means anything, isn't it?

IF common-goals cannot be found, THEN congruent-action cannot be/result.

IF common-values cannot be found, THEN harmonious-operations aren't going to result.

Etc.

Nick Yee discovered that there is a category of people who enjoy breaking social-worth, because that is the buzz/pleasure they're wired for.

I expect "griefers" are in that category.

& rigging society so that nobody would have any authority to stop such abuse, unless perhaps some event-consensus were to happen..

but then you've got a "consensus-group" ruling over the griefer, arbitrarily, haven't you?

What happens when the majority are the abusers, & the minority the abused?

I've read that in a traditional American Indian community-justice-circle, if the majority decide with the abuser..

the only choice left is to leave the resrvation: there's no appeal-system, once it's decided: you've lost.

< shrug >

Whatever..

Just downvote everything I say, anywhere: I'm not going to begin pretending that YOUR magical-definition of anarchy is identical with the other magical-definitions of anarchy that people put in my face..

& therefore, I ought not be allowed, by ANY anarchy, to be affecting, or harming, your-ideology's world.

Make your-world happen.

_ /\ _

Nowhere did I say people should have the right to "butcher" others.

No, experienced people having authority over inexperienced is not anti-anarchy, unless they always hold authority even in the face of a good idea.

Of course consensus is important in ANY socially-bound system, and the indians were correct. When the majority decide to be fucking morons, it's time to go. Or worst case, take a nice trek deep into the Paradox of Tolerance and kill the belligerent ring leaders.

Yes, there always has to be some hierarchy... the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of "anarchy" is that authority has to be JUSTIFIED, preferably at all times. Only stupid children think anarchy literally means zero authority.

You're only being gaslit successfully because you're clearly too stupid to pull the obvious axioms out of such an ideology...