Comment and thread in question: https://lemmy.world/comment/23138585
Ban from that community, memes@lemmy.ml:
Rule 1 of said community: Be civil and nice.
Rule 1 of said instance: No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
I was clearly not bigoted in any manner, and I believe more civil than the way I was treated, was it the Code of Conduct? Excerpts:
Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be mean or rude.
Respect that people have differences of opinion and that every design or implementation choice carries a trade-off and numerous costs. There is seldom a right answer.
I think I was kind with the people I disagreed with, even if they could not be in return, yet those comments (some including ableist slurs) remain. I think this is enough to demonstrate it is merely a difference in ideology which motivated the ban. Well, bans, because it seems they copied and pasted the same ban in all the communities they have access to:
It’s not a general lemmy.ml ban, just those in particular.
I understand this kind of behavior in safe space communities that don’t want outsiders bellyaching about the pragmatism of electoral politics, but that’s not the case in any of the communities I’ve been banned from, nor is it a part of the instance rules or CoC.
PTB or triggered shitlib? Not an exclusive or, of course.
don’t call people “honey” unless you want to catch a instance ban. I’m not your fucking honey.
Oh my bad, shitlib motherfucker. How many marginalized lives have you made worse today?
The irony here is incredible lmao
Just because you disagree doesn’t make it ironical.
I didn’t say it did ☺ two things can be true
That’s true, two things can be true! Like, perhaps these two:
Democrats are bad and need to be cancelled.
A Democratic administration would have resulted in much less suffering.
Similarly:
A Democratic administration would have resulted in much less suffering
Voting for Democrats supports fascism
It’s important to note, however, that a more accurate statement for #1 is “A Democratic administration would have resulted in much less suffering [in the short term]”
Okay good, now we’re getting somewhere. Personally, I don’t think choosing the lesser evil is “supporting fascism,” because it directly serves to keep the more fascist party out of office. Is less suffering, even in the short term, not worth choosing the fascist that hurts less people? Because if both options are fascist, then your only options in the system are “supporting fascists.”
I’m not discounting extra-electoral action, in fact I advocate for it, but in the capacity of an election choosing the lesser evil is the pragmatic choice. Please, please share your long term harm reduction plans, I’d love to have better people to vote for, but right now it’s D and R.
“supporting the less fascist option” = “supporting fascism”. You’re playing semantic games to avoid believing/saying that you’re supporting fascism. There is no “voting against” only “voting for” (in this context, obviously- for the presidential race)
I personally don’t think so. It’s a valid argument, but I don’t believe there is a “right” or “wrong” with this. I enjoy these kinds of discussions as thought experiments, but there’s a time & place for it (and this thread isn’t it, imo)
D & R aren’t the only options though. Yes, they’re (probably) the only outcomes regardless of choice, but abstaining and voting third party are both valid options. I understand you disagree- from what I understand, your primary(/only?) concern is the direct/immediate outcome- but, like I said before, this part is a matter of perspective. Other people, like myself, prioritize long-term consequences, principles, etc. over immediate consequences.
I’ve already seen others explain this to you, so I don’t think it will do any good for me to repeat it in my own words.
Paying taxes to a fascist administration is supporting fascism. I don’t blame people for paying taxes because they feel it’s their “only option”, but it’s dishonest to try to absolve yourself of culpability with semantics.
the irony of right-wing liberal scum calling a leftist a shitlib.
No leftist would dehumanize marginalized groups like you, I actually care about things being better for people.
says the person who argued the dems were better because their genocide was nicer. sure, you care about people, when black history month or pride month comes around and you want to earn brownie points on twitter. too bad all that theatrical posturing doesn’t make you a good person.
strawman. projecting again? who can tell. well I can for sure tell that you’re desperate for someone to tell you you’re a good person
I mean I’m the one here actually advocating for things that would make black and queer lives better, that’s more than you can say. How sad, you’re out-done by a pathetic little shitlib.
somebody heard a term online and think using it makes them look smart. just because something is a fallacy, doesn’t make it a bad argument. like, when I say your opinion isn’t worth considering because you’re a fascist piece of shit, that’s an ad hominem. it’s also the fucking truth, because the only good nazi is a dead one.
Sorry, but the shoe fits. Not gonna waste my time explaining how I’ve been misrepresented when I can just signal “that’s not what I said” instead.