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

  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
    0·
    2 months ago

    Here’s what I actually said. It’s three messages:

    You realize that allowing Trump to come to power is more Palestinian death, right? It’s literally right there at the beginning of Greta’s statement: This election is hugely important and, however shit some Democratic policies are when compared against what we actually need, Trump is clearly dangerous as fuck on a whole other level. That applies to the Mideast just as firmly as it does on climate change. Personally I agree with 100% of what she has to say here, both the first and second parts.

    You’ve mentioned this concept more than once. Can you explain? Are you under the impression that if any number of people don’t vote for Harris, the genocide will stop? Usually that’s how co-signing works, but that is not how this genocide works. That’s kind of the whole point. Running from a house fire outside into a dangerous blizzard isn’t “co-signing the blizzard.” It is reducing the harm that this awful thing can do, replacing a certainly deadly thing with one that is less dangerous.

    Greta Thunberg would, I think, be disappointed and angry that anyone would take what she said as a justification for ways to help get Trump elected. Let me highlight the very clearly written part that you seem to have missed:

    It is probably Impossible to overestimate the consequences this specific election will have for the world and for the future of humanity.

    There is no doubt that one of the candidates — Trump — is way more dangerous than the other.

    If you want real positive change, listen to Greta and fight for change outside the system. If you want third parties, support RCV and proportional representation, to make them viable. If you want the end of the fucking world, then don’t vote, or vote for spoiler candidates within the current system that makes them unelectable.

    The part of your statement where you say:

    So if any libs were advocating for both things and had their comments removed then I think there’s maybe a bit of PTB involved in those cases.

    I can agree with, except for the part where you said “maybe a bit of.”

    • Unruffled [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      1·
      2 months ago

      The part of your statement where you say:

      So if any libs were advocating for both things and had their comments removed then I think there’s maybe a bit of PTB involved in those cases.

      I can agree with, except for the part where you said “maybe a bit of.”

      Ok, fair enough from your perspective. From my perspective, it is still entirely consistent with anarchism to outright reject calls to participate in a 2-party democracy by voting though. While personally, I see no harm in doing both things (voting + direct action) and wouldn’t remove comments advocating for such, another anarchist might see one thing as taking away from the impetus for the other, which is why I qualified my remark.

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

      But this comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchism vs libertarianism/free speech and really isn’t a valid criticism.

      • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
        01·
        2 months ago

        I think if your “ism” involves telling me I’m not allowed to point out an urgent threat to both of our well-being and advocate for a partial solution, mechanically enforcing silence on me if I persist in talking about the threat, then your “ism” is a bunch of garbage.

        There may be a way of applying anarchism which isn’t subject to that laughably obvious danger, in which case I have no problem with that alternative way. Like I said, I don’t think this person is an anarchist. Most of their posts seem to be about the election, with only a small minority being anarchist stuff.

        • Unruffled [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          1·
          2 months ago

          Nobody is “mechanically enforcing silence” on you. There’s plenty of other mainstream communities and instances to share your opinion. But you don’t have the right to present your opinions in an anarchist community any more than you have a “right” to come into my home and berate me about voting. That’s just a libertarian free-speech(ism) mentality.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          Speaking as a moderator, moderating communities isn’t exclusively about ideology. I believe, ideologically, in freedom of speech - but I’m not going to let shitheads shit up my communities just because they have the legal or moral right to spout off. I have the right to keep a clean house - to not provide a platform to whoever wants it. Hell, this extends to the simply irrelevant - if someone, genuinely and innocently but insistently - started posting fantasy artifacts in !historyartifacts@lemmy.world, I would remove their posts in a heartbeat.

          Freedom of speech doesn’t mean giving everyone your platform to speak out - anarchism doesn’t mean communities cannot be curated. Though, I believe, in terms of praxis it would mandate a more democratic means of curating communities, but as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Lemmy’s not really got the tools for that.