this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
76 points (75.7% liked)

Asklemmy

54159 readers
437 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Lemmy.world reportedly bans people for being anti-Zionist. At the same time, numerous human rights organizations have documented that Zionist policies and actions amount to crimes against humanity (e.g., forced displacement, collective punishment, apartheid).

If banning opposition to crimes against humanity is itself anti-humanity, doesn’t that make lemmy.world complicit? How do you reconcile defending a platform that silences critics while atrocities continue?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MrSulu@lemmy.ml 14 points 3 days ago

I completely agree. There was an analogy used at work some years ago. If we decided to call a dogs tail a leg, would that mean that all dogs have five legs? The answer is ridiculously simple. Dogs have four legs and a tail. The names used make no difference. In this case, if Israel is committing genocidal acts, then that is just a straight fact. Renaming objection as anti-Semitic does not take away the fact of the genocide.