1. Mod of !anarchism@slrpnk.net posts a great Greta Thunberg quote, but then tries to use it to justify not voting in the upcoming US election
  2. Multiple people point out that’s very clearly not what she meant
  3. Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod

Using your mod powers to decide who is allowed and not allowed to speak is not very anarchist of you, @mambabasa@slrpnk.net

  • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    4·
    2 months ago

    I’m really confused as an anarchist myself.

    I know some anarchists who believe we should boycott the system and not vote, I know some anarchists who believe we should vote for Jill Stein because she is the most progressive candidate, and I know some anarchists (which include myself) who think along more utilitarian lines, that this election will can only end in two outcomes, and that one will cause a lot more suffering than the other, therefore I will vote for the one that causes the least suffering.

    We anarchists believe more in direct action than voting, but that doesn’t mean we can’t vote.

    I’m very concerned about this censorship of discourse on an anarchist community. And want to know what the moderator who made this decision’s rationale was. Would this comment be removed in !anarchism@slrpnk.net because I say not all anarchists vote for Jill Stein?

      • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        3·
        2 months ago

        So my comment would be removed because according to the mod I provide “ideological cover for evil”, by not supporting Jill Stein, even though my rationale conforms with anarchist ideals?

        • poVoq@slrpnk.net
          1·
          2 months ago

          No, the argument is something like this: you can vote (or not vote) however you like and voting strategically or for the lesser evil is a compromise many Anarchists make, but you are lying to yourself and others if you claim that this is anything but a painful compromise. Jill Stein is irrelevant for that question.

          • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            0·
            2 months ago

            I agree with what you said, via painful compromise and such, but that’s not the impression I got of the driving force behind the moderator’s decisions.

            It seemed more like they were removing the comments because basically suggesting to vote for the lesser evil was in their view providing justification for evil and does not belong in the community.

            If that’s the view of the moderators is that only idealistic (black or white) anarchism is welcome, and all forms of pragmaticism or utilitarianism or philosophicisim within anarchist ideals are unwelcome in the community, I will have to stop participating.

            • poVoq@slrpnk.net
              01·
              2 months ago

              I can’t speak for the exact reasoning, but my impression is more like this:

              The OP made a post explicitly about how voting is not enough and that direct action is needed (a very uncontroversial position for Anarchists) in an Anarchist community and because it is upvoted a lot and hits the all feed, some non-anarchist liberals show up in the comments and Reply-Bro their off-topic views about how it is absolutely crucial to vote for Harris and spout their various hypocritical justifications as of why. As a result the OP gets angry at those uninvited comments and deletes some of them and closes the thread and also gives a temp ban to some especially argumentative people that clearly didn’t get the message.

              I find this pretty sensible over all, as this isn’t about not welcoming “all forms of pragmaticism or utilitarianism or philosophicisim within anarchist ideals” but rather about showing people the door who are clearly not anarchists nor seem to be interested in learning about it.

              • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
                1·
                2 months ago

                Here’s the mod log. IMO the OP already invited those comments (the post says in the first few lines that Trump is way more dangerous) and I don’t see how they were bludgeoning or hypocritical.

                • poVoq@slrpnk.net
                  12·
                  2 months ago

                  Yes they didn’t understand it either, but you have to keep in mind which community they commented in.

                  • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
                    3·
                    2 months ago

                    Erm, which they are you referring to? Nobody’s saying elections are better than anarchism, and as I’ve said below (on my alt account of the same name), I don’t see how saying voting for Harris is better than voting for Stein contradicts election principles. It’s not like Greta endorses Stein either.