Rule 7 of !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com is:
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can’t control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
I think a community with an ideology is a fine thing, and rules that prevent people with opposing ideologies from taking over the conversation are a good idea. FlipAnarchy's rules 3, 4, and 6 are well designed to accomplish this goal and I like them. And I've even taken a little inspiration from lemmy.dbzer0.com when I designed My instance's rule 2, which limits authoritarianism on the site, sometimes in a way that ruffles outsiders' jimmies - I once got a 2 day ban from .ca for reporting a screenshot of a post by someone named "princess". I was marking the post for later deletion because we don't want content from hereditary monarchist users, and the .ca admins didn't get it. My anarchism was a bit too radical for them to understand.
Anyway, FlipAnarchy rule 3 targets "right-wing" and "anarcho-capitalist" posts. Good, these are well-defined labels for ideological opponents to anarchism. Rule 4 targets "redfash", which is a lot looser, but fortunately comes with a well-reasoned explanation why tankies are not welcome. Rule 6 warns people who aren't "anarchist", and again we have some well designed rules here, very clear on who they're aimed at.
Rule 7 is a bit different. The tone of this rule is a lot angrier than the rest, and it being the last, it's easy to imagine that it was written in haste after the community mod became frustrated by posts that didn't break the rules, but weren't welcome. I think it's time to give this rule another pass to polish it up to the same spec as the other rules.
Sentence A of this rule is pretty clear, so far off to a good start.
Sentence B... is where it all goes wrong. It's saying no shaming people for anti-electoralism should be obvious based on rule 6, which says it's an anarchist community. But I'm an anarchist and I don't see how this rule is obvious. I think there's a lot of ongoing debate between anarchists about when voting is appropriate and necessary. Sentence B continues by calling everyone who breaks this rule a "turbolib".
Sentence C says "you have the rest of lemmy to moralize", but who is "you"? Is it the turbolibs? Are anarchists allowed to moralize on this community? Are they allowed to moralize if they disagree with db0's personal opinion?
This rule reads as angry, and defensive, and targeted at a particular idea of a rulebreaker in the moderator's head. What are the boundaries of the rule as they apply to people who don't fit this idea? Anarchists like Myself, who are not electoralist, but are pro-voting? Unclear until we see the rule in action.
So let's see the rule in action.
Removed Comment You've got to be kidding me. The fact that an anarchist sub moderated by a libertarian socialist has that rule is really shameful and embarrassing. by Guy Ingonito@reddthat.com
reason: Rule 7
This Guy doesn't look like a "turbolib" to Me, they look like a fellow anarchist annoyed by the way this rule appears to insult them.
Removed Comment "Dems never learn! That's why we need to withhold our vote to teach them a lesson!" by PugJesus@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 7
Okay, I know PugJesus, and he's no turbolib. He leans centrist on gender issues, but he's also done a lot to oppose redfash ideology on Lemmy and PieFed, he has a clear understanding of communist ideology and would seem to be exactly the sort this community should welcome.
Banned
TrickDacy
@lemmy.world
from the community Flippanarchy
reason: Too many rule 7 violations to deal with manually
TrickDacy moderates !fuck_ai@lemmy.world, a very radical community.
Removed Post Communists vs Tankies on voting
reason: Rule 7
Well surely a post that portrays communists and tankies as ideologically opposed must be anarchist! I refuse to believe the OP of this is a turbolib! (it Me)
I'm cherry-picking, to be sure. There are plenty of instances of this rule in action where the target was someone who I would be willing to agree is indeed a turbolib, even if I wouldn't personally use that wording. But this rule isn't just for them, it's also for anarchists who simply don't agree with db0 on the best way forward in our current political situation. And we've got Marx quotes to back us up and everything, if you really need to test our ideological purity.
So this rule should be changed in one of two ways: It should either be reworded to stop insulting anarchists and make it clear that this is a point the moderator is unwilling to compromise on, OR it should be revised to only target neoliberals, and allow us anarchists to speak freely on this debate.
Until one of those two changes is made, the rule is currently abusing moderator authority to present a personal opinion, controversial within the community, as the only truth of anarchism. And that's not very anarchist.
Counterpoint:
Turbolibs who cannot shut the fuck up about the elections they lose so masterfully anf blaming theor spectacular failures on everyone else ruin every space. You cannot have a discussion with them around and they need to be banned.
I have had more productive conversations with a literal nazi who was trying to surround me in a dark alley while we talked. At least the nazi could run with a bit.
I do believe there's a good version of this rule that prevents neoliberals from dominating the space, but right now db0 is using this rule to call fellow anarchists "turbolibs" for disagreeing with their personal opinions, with the weight of the modlog behind them. We need to work out what to do about the anarchists who are being called turbolibs.
I don't realky care. I don't really want to talk electoralism and genuinely the shitlibs have scared me off voting forever. I don't want to discuss it and im not eager to waste bandwidth+screen space seeing it discussed. It's genuinely slightly triggeting for me, and I'm clearly not the only one.
So what anount of care is owed to people like me? Can you tag every thread you've hijacked for your boot licking? Current policy works for me.
I'm sorry, but the hottest two posts on that community right now, with 446 and 370 upvotes respectively, are about electoralism. The users on that community want to talk about electoralism. Lemmy as a whole is boosting the posts on that community which are about electoralism. And those posts aren't breaking the rules as they currently exist.
If you wanted to suggest revising the rule to some form of "electoralism is a banned subject, do not attack or invalidate your fellow anarchists for their pro- or anti- electoralist views and do not post about the subject", I would 100% support you in pushing for that change, and I would be very happy with the result, because I also dislike these shit-stirring posts that drive a wedge through the most controversial issue in the community and I think the debate is played out at this point. So it seems you and I have something in common there.
Also, *You. I use capitalised pronouns in all three grammatical persons.
I don't care about anti electoralist positions. Those donct trigger me.
I clicked on one of thoss posts im pretty sure it's about how rabidly shitlibs do this.
Feels like you're arguing in bad faith here. Electoralists are scum. I'm not interested in hearing their bullshit even if they are 'fellow anarchists' and I'm not tribal enough to privilege somevody's bad idea just because others would put us in the same broad political category.
This rule easily shuts down the turbolibs, makes clear who it's talking about, and makes subhuman filth who feel entitled to rehash their bullshit in every space feel unwelcome. It's a good one and nothing you've said has read to me as anything but 'we should have sympathy for shitlibsamirite fellow kids?'.
I'm not a shitlib, I'm not a turbolib, and I'm not subhuman filth. Neither is PugJesus, and neither, I believe, are Guy or Trick, based on their modlog entries. I'm not even an electoralist, though I agree with you that I'd rather not rehash My precise position here.
I'm trying to take your concerns about what you want to see in the community seriously, and if it seems as though I'm willfully misinterpreting you, it may simply be a result of the fact that the rules are being used to call people like Me turbolibs, you're calling turbolibs subhuman filth, and I am trying very hard not to believe that you are thus calling Me subhuman filth to My face while you ignore My expressed pronoun preferences. I am trying to believe that we have some common ground and can reach a shared resolution. It's very difficult and I apologise if it inadvertently leads to you feeling unheard.
lol
This has got to be a bit, right?
If we search enough we'll find some of the other accounts and possible alts. Only surprised an instance was stood up this time for it
Why do pronouns matter? What do you mean by.... Whatever i missed you asking me to use while speaking to you in the second person. This seems like a weird appropriative parody of an over rigid shibbolethic understanding of part of trans culture. Fuck off with that shit. Even the real necessary version that kerps people safe can get annoying; im not going to cosplay it.
Everything you've had to say here has shown a distinct lack of deep understanding and a lot of concern with surface bullshit and procedure at the cost of actual virtues. I do not wish to engage with you again.
Go fuck yourself. Pronouns matter because it makes us feel happy, respected, and seen to have people use the right pronouns, and it feels hurtful, de-validating and disrespectful to be called the wrong ones.
You seem like the kind of chud who would intentionally misgender me because "Ze/Zir aren't real pronouns" or that they sound weird and made up, and are meant to make fun of trans people. Fuck you. You got off way too easy for this one if I'm being honest.
Holy smokes what an unsurprising arc
Edit:
One should not inquire as to the utility of absolute universal constants, like pronouns. Its why we only have the one.
I'm mostly concerned with the Nazi rhetoric- the transphobia was just the cherry on top
The Nazi rhetoric, if you couldn't make the connection, was you referring to people as "subhuman filth."
Do you really believe that rhetoric is shallow aesthetics, and using Nazi rhetoric is fine if on the inside you're secretly not a Nazi?
Or is your response just a good ole non sequitur
Rhetoric can be shallow aesthetics.
I could also talk about liking dogs or being shit at everything. Would that make me a nazi? I think there are things, including being lost to fascism or cult liberalism, that make you subhuman. Quirk of our plasticity. Really that rhetoric isnt perfect but perfect accuracy is a luxury not often available in public conversations. 'Not a person, but an object with all the frailties of biology and none of the ways its cool. I dont mean to disparage other species'.
You can take your magical bullshit shortcut thinkingThats fine, until it leads you to very unfortunate conclusions or cognitive dissonance. I assume you do it because somebody told you that was nice.
I would rather be correct than nice. Its a value i have. And it often leads to doing nice things, but without the feeling of being fake as fuck.
Noticed you were banned. Feel free to respond via DM bc at this point I'm genuinely enthralled and excited to understand you. Going to sleep now tho jsyk
It certainly can be, but it isn't when we're talking about dehumanizing groups of people.
What
Please consider reflecting on this. It's fucking bananas.
Do you think I'm calling you out on this because I'm vegan? Bc that has nothing to do with it. If that's not what you're getting at, I have no idea what you mean by this.
Is the conclusion / cognitive dissonance you're implying that you think I would hesitate to kill a fascist because I don't see them as subhuman? I don't need to dehumanize my enemies to be willing to fight them.
To be clear, this is my best guess because the primary purpose of dehumanizing a group of people is to justify eliminating them.
You assume that I don't dehumanize people because someone said that not dehumanizing groups of people is nice? I avoid it because it's fascist behaviour
What on earth does this have to do with being correct? Do you literally believe some groups of human are "less human" than others? I assumed you were at least speaking metaphorically
I'm having trouble following your train of thought. What are you implying?
They make Me feel like Myself. Studies show self-esteem is more governed by the cultural values of the society one grew up in than one's own values. Social affirmation of identity is in My opinion therefore a human right.
I said I use capitalised pronouns, and I mean that I do not like to be called "you" with a lowercase Y.
Sorry no. I dont use caps on purpose unless it's for a bit. Im typing on a phone right now. You can, if you like. But im not really interested. Im not interested in continuing to engage with your shallow aesthetics.