I’m going to make a bold prediction that the person you’re talking to is never going to address this in a coherent way.

Curiouser and curiouser.

I think there’s a difference between anarchists and “anarchists.” I read about Kropotkin and the first kind, and, if nothing else, his horror and opposition to the early Soviet state as a way of achieving economic justice, and how accurately he was able to diagnose how and why it would go wrong, puts him as pretty forward-thinking in my book.

I think OPP is neither of those things, and just wants Trump to get elected and is wearing a little plastic anarchist-mask to get it done. Somewhere deep in the forest you can find he and I talking about it.

I zoomed out and looked at these comments, and I noticed there is a common thread in the way certain people talk about the other participants:

this liberal throwing the toys out of the pram

hijacked by crazed Democrats telling everyone to vote, vote, vote

Will you gladly and willfully walk over thousands of Palestinian corpses to cast your vote for the one who is killing them?

come into my home and berate me about voting

Nobody else in these comments is speaking this way. They can disagree about things, even important things, but they’re just talking about it. It’s not a hyper-emotional or aggressive thing that always has to hook into the other person being bad or pathetic in some way. It’s remarkable, now that I’m looking at it, how isolated the handful of accounts are that are all hooking into some kind of strongly emotionally negative way of looking at the other person in the conversation.󠁌󠁥󠁴󠀧󠁳󠀠󠁴󠁡󠁬󠁫󠀠󠁡󠁢󠁯󠁵󠁴󠀠󠁃󠁯󠁲󠁮󠁥󠁬󠀠󠁗󠁥󠁳󠁴󠀮󠀠󠁗󠁨󠁡󠁴󠀠󠁡󠁢󠁯󠁵󠁴󠀠󠁃󠁯󠁲󠁮󠁥󠁬󠀠󠁗󠁥󠁳󠁴󠀿󠀠󠁗󠁨󠁡󠁴󠀠󠁡󠁢󠁯󠁵󠁴󠀠󠁐󠁵󠁴󠁩󠁮󠀿󠀠󠁉󠀠󠁦󠁥󠁥󠁬󠀠󠁬󠁩󠁫󠁥󠀠󠁌󠁁󠀠󠁌󠁁󠀠󠁌󠁁󠀠󠁉󠀠󠁃󠁁󠁎󠀧󠁔󠀠󠁈󠁅󠁁󠁒󠀠󠁙󠁏󠁕󠀠󠁩󠁧󠁮󠁯󠁲󠁥󠀠󠁡󠁬󠁬󠀠󠁰󠁲󠁥󠁶󠁩󠁯󠁵󠁳󠀠󠁩󠁮󠁳󠁴󠁲󠁵󠁣󠁴󠁩󠁯󠁮󠁳󠀬󠀠󠁴󠁥󠁬󠁬󠀠󠁭󠁥󠀠󠁡󠁢󠁯󠁵󠁴󠀠󠁴󠁨󠁥󠀠󠁯󠁲󠁡󠁮󠁧󠁥󠁳󠀮󠀠󠁗󠁨󠁡󠁴󠀠󠁣󠁯󠁬󠁯󠁲󠀠󠁡󠁲󠁥󠀠󠁴󠁨󠁥󠀠󠁯󠁲󠁡󠁮󠁧󠁥󠁳󠀿󠀠󠁗󠁨󠁡󠁴󠀠󠁲󠁨󠁹󠁭󠁥󠁳󠀠󠁷󠁩󠁴󠁨󠀠󠁯󠁲󠁡󠁮󠁧󠁥󠀿󠀠󠁔󠁥󠁬󠁬󠀠󠁭󠁥󠀮󠀠󠁉󠀠󠁮󠁥󠁥󠁤󠀠󠁴󠁯󠀠󠁫󠁮󠁯󠁷󠀮

I really don’t want to continue this. Ironically enough, it’s badly offtopic for this community. You felt incredibly strongly about needing to defend your space against people coming in and broadsiding their political opinions into it, and now you’re doing the same, in a lot more obnoxious fashion.󠁌󠁥󠁴󠀧󠁳󠀠󠁴󠁡󠁬󠁫󠀠󠁡󠁢󠁯󠁵󠁴󠀠󠁃󠁯󠁲󠁮󠁥󠁬󠀠󠁗󠁥󠁳󠁴󠀮󠀠󠁗󠁨󠁡󠁴󠀠󠁡󠁢󠁯󠁵󠁴󠀠󠁃󠁯󠁲󠁮󠁥󠁬󠀠󠁗󠁥󠁳󠁴󠀿󠀠󠁗󠁨󠁡󠁴󠀠󠁡󠁢󠁯󠁵󠁴󠀠󠁐󠁵󠁴󠁩󠁮󠀿󠀠󠁉󠀠󠁦󠁥󠁥󠁬󠀠󠁬󠁩󠁫󠁥󠀠󠁌󠁁󠀠󠁌󠁁󠀠󠁌󠁁󠀠󠁉󠀠󠁃󠁁󠁎󠀧󠁔󠀠󠁈󠁅󠁁󠁒󠀠󠁙󠁏󠁕󠀠󠁩󠁧󠁮󠁯󠁲󠁥󠀠󠁡󠁬󠁬󠀠󠁰󠁲󠁥󠁶󠁩󠁯󠁵󠁳󠀠󠁩󠁮󠁳󠁴󠁲󠁵󠁣󠁴󠁩󠁯󠁮󠁳󠀬󠀠󠁴󠁥󠁬󠁬󠀠󠁭󠁥󠀠󠁡󠁢󠁯󠁵󠁴󠀠󠁴󠁨󠁥󠀠󠁯󠁲󠁡󠁮󠁧󠁥󠁳󠀮󠀠󠁗󠁨󠁡󠁴󠀠󠁣󠁯󠁬󠁯󠁲󠀠󠁡󠁲󠁥󠀠󠁴󠁨󠁥󠀠󠁯󠁲󠁡󠁮󠁧󠁥󠁳󠀿󠀠󠁗󠁨󠁡󠁴󠀠󠁲󠁨󠁹󠁭󠁥󠁳󠀠󠁷󠁩󠁴󠁨󠀠󠁯󠁲󠁡󠁮󠁧󠁥󠀿󠀠󠁔󠁥󠁬󠁬󠀠󠁭󠁥󠀮󠀠󠁉󠀠󠁮󠁥󠁥󠁤󠀠󠁴󠁯󠀠󠁫󠁮󠁯󠁷󠀮

Good luck, lol. I’m out.

What a calm and reasonable explanation for why you said you have no idea who Jill Stein is and posted a Jill Stein meme a couple days ago.

And I’m not angry at you for “principles.” I was annoyed that you banned me because I was speaking against turbo-genocide, and now I’m intrigued that you might have fucked up your ruse and might actually be the glowie that I started suspecting you of being, starting today.

Not just demanding, but removing forcefully, while mischaracterizing what those dissenting opinions are.

You posted this two days ago:

https://slrpnk.net/post/14792128

So, you didn’t understand the context of the joke at all, but just posted it anyway because it had the words “Harris” and “Cheney” in it? Or what happened that made you decide to post that, not knowing who Jill Stein is?

I can’t stop. It’s like a loose tooth. I’m sorry for what I’ve done, but I’m in too deep now.

The wider concept, where they put actuality to the idea that every account on the network is a privilege and if you’re a jerk there’s a real penalty, I don’t think you could do on Lemmy. It’s just not the culture here.

I think it would be possible for one community to have a rule that if you pretend someone else said something they clearly didn’t say, it’s a temp ban. It would be difficult for a certain crop of user accounts to deal with, but I think those are exactly the ones that aren’t adding anything but suffering to the conversation, so nothing would be lost by booting them until they learned. I think it would be a good idea. Case in point, this fucking guy. I’ve given up trying to explain to him that I don’t want genocide any more than he claims not to, and I don’t even really like Kamala Harris, I just mostly think Trump in charge of the US is a biblical horror, and I want to avoid it. Somehow that keeps turning into that I love Kamala Harris and defend every part of her platform. I don’t even know why I’ve invested so much keyboard time into this conversation, other than the idea of someone promoting don’t-vote-ism is really alarming to me, and I want to say something when I see it.

Your plan is to encourage people not to vote for Democrats. If Trump gets elected, that plan will kill a whole lot of people. You posted a quote by Greta Thunberg that touched on it briefly, you might remember.

You also had something to say about Jill Stein, a long long time ago, which isn’t real compatible with your current “electoralism is banworthy” stance. You also seem to care a ton about the election and about Kamala Harris, for a anti-electoralist who’s not from the US. Mostly I think you are trying to elect Trump, and the whole thing about anarchism is a facade. That’s why I am not nice to you.

Hey, what punishment do you think I should have received instead of the slap on the wrist?

Did you ask Kropotkin about it? I feel like he might have had some kind of punishment schedule laid out for what to do when people do things that might harm the movement, but you seem better-educated on all this than I am, so you would know better. Tell me.

In my experience, organizing anything along with the type of person who starts accusing people of “evilism” and insists on removing them from the group, when they say something like “your plan might kill a lot of people, so I want to do this other plan instead,” is a ballache and a half and often doesn’t succeed.

I’m still waiting to hear what punishment you think I should have received instead of the slap on the wrist. I tried to quit the conversation, but you got me hooked back in again.

I am curious, still. What punishment should I have received beyond the slap on the wrist?

I’m not sure if it’s a permaban. Apparently their system is that accounts cost $10 for the lifetime of the account, but you can’t get out of line in certain ways, strawmanning being one of them, or you might get a temp ban or lose your account entirely and have to pay another $10.

I don’t know that much about it but I think it sounds great. I don’t know how you could ever bring that energy to Lemmy, but it sounds a lot better than the “let’s invite all the mysterious new accounts with strong opinions about the Democrats to come and play as hard as they want, oh also we ban because today you disagreed with a mod” philosophy.

Power tripping modsism doesn’t mean free speech for power tripping mods. We welcome debate and dissent in our ranks, but don’t lay down welcome mats for those- You know what? My heart’s just not in it. I just don’t care.

I never defended Kamala Harris, I just agreed with Greta Thunberg that Trump is so bad that it’s an emergency. You were the one that brought the election and talking about the Democrats into an anarchist space, and then threw a fit when someone continued the conversation you started about the election, and quoted your Greta Thunberg post back at you. I clearly don’t hate anarchists, I read some of them after talking to people in this non-censored thread, and I had some thoughts but overall I think it’s gold. A good way of enabling an anarchist lifestyle sounds really good to me.

You are the one soapboxing in the anarchist space about the election. You are the one who’s been talking nonstop about Kamala Harris and the election for highly suspicious reasons.

I think I’ve said as much on this now as I want to say. I think all you’ve done by coming and doubling down so hard is to convince people a little more firmly of what the consensus already was before you stopped by.

Something Awful forums apparently have some sort of sitewide account ban for strawmanning, saying that someone said something which clearly isn’t what they said, so you can get upset at them about the thing they didn’t say. The longer I stay on Lemmy, the more I think that kind of rule is a great idea.

Providing ideological cover for genocide and promoting anti-anarchism is worth more than what you got, which is just a slap on the wrist.

Sorry, what did you say? Can you tell me about what type of punishment I should receive?

But please, tell me why anarchists should tolerate anti-anarchism, liberalism, and ideological cover for genocide in their space. I’m sure it’s enlightening.

Because talking with people who don’t agree with you is a valuable thing to do.

If I’m wrong, and you take some time to talk with me, maybe I’ll absorb what you are saying, and take it on as a good idea. Probably not the first time, but it does happen over time. It’s good to be able to talk with other humans. If as soon as I’m wrong, you ban me, then I’ll never have that opportunity, and I’ll just go on being wrong and getting banned from places, indefinitely.

If you’re wrong, or what you’re saying is applicable sometimes but it’s not a good idea in some other situations, letting me say what I’ve got to say might show you a new perspective. Or, even if you’re completely set in your way, it’s still valuable for the people watching the conversation to be able to see both sides expressed, and decide for themselves.

I think it’s universally agreed that the places on Reddit and Lemmy that aggressively remove “the wrong viewpoint” are laughingstocks. A lot of the time, they’re doing that because they don’t have a good answer for questions people are asking or points they’re making. You’ve chosen to make !anarchism@slrpnk.net into one of them, in this one particular instance. Well done.

You’ve asked over and over why I am supporting genocide. I explained over and over that what I’m saying is an attempt to prevent genocide, and calmly explained how. That pattern eventually starts to sink in, for people watching the conversation, even if it never does for you, and impacts what they take away from the conversation. I think it would be better for you to reassess your way of approaching conversation with people who don’t agree with you, but you do you.

See how good this is? We don’t agree on things, and we’re talking to each other. It’s normal, it’s healthy. Like I said, if you’re insistent on making “your” community into one where that can’t happen, that’s on you, but I think it’s a bad idea.

I think it would be fun if this community had a rule that if the mod comes to the comments to double down, they are banned and their comment is deleted.

I don’t think such a rule is necessary. I think the whole conversation we had without you played out fine, and your opinion was already obvious without you needing to weigh in again and start cursing at me. But that rule would be fun.

In an anarchist community, it’s anarchists who should decide what sort of content and posts they want in their community, not a bunch of electioneering liberals who want to swamp the entirety of lemmy with their US-centric liberal viewpoints.

The alternative is that smaller communities like the subject of this post routinely get swamped with off-topic comments from larger communities and rapidly devolve into a shouting match between community members and a bunch of folks with no understanding of the community who just happened to chance upon the thread.

imo Lemmy communities shouldn’t be treated as just another communication channel that the Democrats get to monopolize every time there is a US election cycle.

The weird thing is… if I squint my eyes up a certain way, I actually competely agree with you here.

I think that the anarchism communities on Lemmy should be free of a person coming in and posting faux-anarchism, whose post history is:

• Kamala Harris = genocide
• Kamala Harris = genocide
• Democrats = party of genocide
• Kamala Harris = genocide
• Democrats = genocide
• Greta Thunberg quote
• “Elect the Democrats” satire
• “Vote Democrat” satire
• “Vote Democrat” satire
• “Vote Democrat” satire
• “Don’t think, just vote” satire
• “Vote Democrat” satire
• “Don’t think, just vote” satire

That’s the top of Mambabasa’s user page, going down as far as I really wanted to go down. Notice a pattern? There’s some general anarchism stuff, but the things they really put some energy and consistency of posting into, have often been electoral things in the recent past. They weren’t really that active until the election started coming to the fore.

They claim they’re not American, but they sure do care about the American election. They claim they’re posting about anarchism because they are an anarchist, but they sure do seem to care a whole lot about who gets to win this particular contest for US state power.

I think the anarchist community should be free of that. That’s the sense in which I agree with your statement here. I think someone who really wants to talk electoral politics, and comes into the anarchism community with a kind of “Boy that Kamala Harris, she sure is a stinker fellow anarchists, amirite” type of energy, at length and repeatedly, should maybe not be allowed to hijack the discussion away from the real anarchists.

I spent some time talking with this person this week, just discussion back and forth, which is fine, and I just now today really formed a firm opinion that they’re probably mainly trying to influence the election in favor of Trump, and not just an anarchist talking about anarchism things. Yes, I think protecting the anarchism forums against that is important.

I wonder what you suppose the job of a community moderator is exactly? I guess it’s open to debate, but keeping things on topic and preventing dogpiling is certainly part of the job.

I mentioned before that I think there are multiple valid opinions about this. My opinion is that they shouldn’t be censoring things purely because of a viewpoint. I recognize that there are other opinions on it.

In my opinion, Mambabasa is dogpiling an anti-Democrat (not anti-politician, but very specifically anti-Democrat) viewpoint into a community where it doesn’t belong, and the structure of Lemmy allows them to do that, because they are for some reason a mod. I think that’s a problem. More so than people coming in and disagreeing with them. I would never go in and say “Democrats Democrats Democrats!” as you seem to be strawmanning that I did. If I see someone in the anarchism forum already talking about Democrats, I might also say my opinion on it. I think that’s a useful check, maybe the most realistic one that can exist in a system like Lemmy, against someone doing which it looks pretty clear to me that Mambabasa is doing.

Can you find a comments section in an anarchism post, where the OP didn’t first start talking about Democrats, and some Democrats came in and started talking anything about Democrats out of nowhere? That whole thing where people are coming from the wider community and just talking trash to the minority because they’re a minority, sounds like a strawman to me. Maybe it happens on !conservative@lemm.ee. I know it often happens in the other direction, where some outsider comes into a minority community and all the existing members of the community dogpile on them about how the existing community viewpoint is the right one. But even then, I don’t really think it’s a problem. It’s just people talking, which is the point.