You’re a 2 day old account with the same username as HC’s admin. Your only posts/comments on your account are in defense of that instance. I hardly consider you an unbiased or trustworthy source based on my experiences with that instance.
Yes, in a comment of mine immediately up this chain, I linked to a site showing that dbzer0 has censured HC.
I felt that the HC admin was not forthcoming enough about their identity when using their alt to defend HC, since most users won’t know the name of admins of instances apart from maybe their own and even less likely those of notable instances or defeded instances. To most users, Splinter would just seem to be an average Joe on Lemmy without any particular affiliation with HC, since in their comments they did not immediately state something to the effect of “I’m an admin of HilariousChaos. Yada yada yada”.
I am one of the admins of HC, using this account so everyone can see what I have to say.
I am telling you that you are welcome to start any kind of community on HC (within the generic site rules) and be welcomed the same as everyone else. You can moderate it however you wish. HC (the instance) does not take political sides.
I went on there for about 30 seconds and found a “The Donald” successor with UniversalMonk posting a little stream of total fantasy about how good the tariffs are and how Trump is going to save us.
I think now that the literal concentration camps are up and running, and people are going into them, it’s time to say that the modern Republican regime is today’s Nazi Party.
I’m actually fine with talking with a Republican online or in person, maybe I’m in the minority here in that. But we’ve all learned from experience that, at least in its current anonymous-online-forum behavior, that openly pro-Nazi contingent is never just looking to have a conversation and be reasonable about expressing what they honestly believe because they think it’s helping the country as a whole, and come to understanding. They’re always going to start threatening people over DMs after a while. They’re always going to post a steady stream of total fantasy, which they don’t actually believe or try to defend, just to try to manipulate the landscape by having it exist as a little offensive torrent which helps them in their work. They’re always going to manipulate the narrative and censor opposing speech in spaces they control. “Free speech” is always going to turn out to be a fiction once it’s speech they don’t agree with. Because that is their ideology: That it’s okay to cheat as long as you’re on their team, and the other team doesn’t deserve any type of human rights.
“Free speech” doesn’t mean one moderator can run their forum however they want. It doesn’t mean we have to listen to one person forever, however much they want to say, but they don’t have to listen to us if they don’t want to. It doesn’t work the way you’re saying it does. It’s a philosophy of freedom of ideas. It’s a shared social contract that comes with obligations, not just grants of what you’re allowed to do. It’s the idea that you may not agree with someone, but you need to hear them out and then engage honestly with what they’re saying. That we need to live together and protect the weakest or “wrongest” among us. That being a society as free humans with our inalienable rights is more important than our team winning. It’s not a set of code that provides everyone write access to the space, or a total-openness-of-moderation policy. It is a commitment to the idea that if we talk honestly with each other and respect each other, even if we don’t agree about something, we’ll be able to work it out, because even someone who you think is wrong as hell might have a point. The crucial piece you’re missing is that it has to cut both ways. Someone who’s claiming the shield, has to be also willing to provide the same shield to others in the space, and otherwise it is completely fair not to welcome them. That’s why every public servant has to swear an oath to the constitution. The oath is not “Now that I’m in charge I solemnly swear to do whatever the fuck I want, until someone else gets in charge and they can do the same to me.”
If someone’s not on board for it cutting both ways, but they’re hijacking some kind of open tool or democratic public space to make a pretense that they do so they can advance their agenda of killing or imprisoning their enemies and shutting down democracy in a place it used to exist, most reasonable people will tell them to get the fuck out. That’s not censorship. It’s self-defense. It’s the same as ejecting from a public meeting someone who blows hard on a whistle every time their opponents try to speak, passes them notes that they might be killed or their house burned down if they keep talking, and then stands up with a quavering voice and swears their commitment to open society and freedom, and says they can’t understand all these people who are aiming such hateful behavior at them because they said they were a bad person. I can easily find examples of all of that on your instance, I can be specific if you want me to. Do you want me to?
I’m not trying to bully you or your instance or anything personal towards you. But you guys have suffered reputational harm at this point because you’ve welcomed people who are actively trying to do harm to the rest of us. Not just harm but literal death and literal imprisonment. A lot of us, I assume, are thinking about fleeing the country, getting weapons to defend ourselves. A lot of us are real fucking worried about friends and family. We’re wondering what the fuck we even do now. We’re within our rights to want nothing more to do with you, if you welcome the viewpoint that all of that is okay. Or, not even that: If you welcome people who are okay lying about their own viewpoint and manipulating the space to try to advance that work and make it more effective.
Like I say: There is a genuine viewpoint that’s adjacent to what you’re saying that I agree with. I don’t think most of the Republican rank-and-file is our enemy (even if we might wind up in a war with them soon, depending). I don’t think shutting out particular honest political viewpoints is the way. I think we have to be able to talk to each other to even be able to begin to approach and heal from this fucking chasm in our society. It goes deeper than just the current Republican regime. But, like I say, once we get back down the rank-and-file level of individual people:
He is definitely a Trump fanboy, I really don’t care about Trump that much - it’s OK to see things differently. I personally cringe at that community too, but they are not breaking our rules. My personal views have nothing to do with it.
I think it is an insult to anyone who has had to endure the horrors of nazi concentration camps, to make that comparison so loosely. They were nothing like what is happening today in America, not even close.
I’m not going to dive into actual US politics (are Republicans nazis, are the Democrats nazis, etc) since I’m not even American and that’s a cesspit I have no business in. Depending on who you talk to, someone else is always the nazi. What I can say is that our instance has clear rules on the type of content we accept, just like everyone else, and we certainly do not tolerate “nazi” content, such as calls for violence, racial discrimination, ultra nationalism, etc. You will not find anything that resembles that.
On a human level, I agree with the points you make. I certainly wouldn’t want you to subject yourself to content you don’t like either, and Lemmy has come a long way to give users control over what they see. All I’m pointing out is that HC would welcome anyone under the same rules. We are no more a Republican instance than we are a Democrat one. I can’t control if people agree or disagree with you, but I have no tolerance for personal attacks, for example. You will find that starting a community on HC would really be no different than starting a community somewhere else.
If people legitimately wanted HC to be a different instance, then they would join it and transform through their own content, to the point where it becomes majority. But people do not want that, it’s easier and more convenient to point the finger and accuse us of being baddies.
Buddy if you can’t click a link and read a simple definition, I don’t know what to tell you. I didn’t say you have specific nazi content, I said you are suffering from the nazi bar problem.
Yeah, hilariouschaos is a bit of a special instance.
Several instances recognize it as a rebrand of the infamous explodingheads instance. I suggest admins defed and users block it.
I wasn’t expecting their admin to come here to try and say it’s not lol
https://hilariouschaos.com/post/2186/9314
Everyone points to old posts by a user who claimed that - a user who has long left when they realized it wasn’t what HC was about.
My reply in this thread provides an explanation: https://hilariouschaos.com/post/757356/302134
That is blatantly false, spread by people who can’t understand why an instance wouldn’t censor based on political lines.
HC has never been anything like exploding heads.
You’re a 2 day old account with the same username as HC’s admin. Your only posts/comments on your account are in defense of that instance. I hardly consider you an unbiased or trustworthy source based on my experiences with that instance.
He is one of the HC admins. LW defeds them.
Lemmy.World is in fact still federated with hilariouschaos
Oh. I thought they did.
They are defederated from dbzer0.
Yes, in a comment of mine immediately up this chain, I linked to a site showing that dbzer0 has censured HC.
I felt that the HC admin was not forthcoming enough about their identity when using their alt to defend HC, since most users won’t know the name of admins of instances apart from maybe their own and even less likely those of notable instances or defeded instances. To most users, Splinter would just seem to be an average Joe on Lemmy without any particular affiliation with HC, since in their comments they did not immediately state something to the effect of “I’m an admin of HilariousChaos. Yada yada yada”.
Makes sense.
Thank you. I’m a proactive blocker so the heads-up is appreciated.
I am one of the admins of HC, using this account so everyone can see what I have to say.
I am telling you that you are welcome to start any kind of community on HC (within the generic site rules) and be welcomed the same as everyone else. You can moderate it however you wish. HC (the instance) does not take political sides.
So then you’re a nazi bar. Got it
Can you point to which content you believe is nazi?
I went on there for about 30 seconds and found a “The Donald” successor with UniversalMonk posting a little stream of total fantasy about how good the tariffs are and how Trump is going to save us.
I think now that the literal concentration camps are up and running, and people are going into them, it’s time to say that the modern Republican regime is today’s Nazi Party.
I’m actually fine with talking with a Republican online or in person, maybe I’m in the minority here in that. But we’ve all learned from experience that, at least in its current anonymous-online-forum behavior, that openly pro-Nazi contingent is never just looking to have a conversation and be reasonable about expressing what they honestly believe because they think it’s helping the country as a whole, and come to understanding. They’re always going to start threatening people over DMs after a while. They’re always going to post a steady stream of total fantasy, which they don’t actually believe or try to defend, just to try to manipulate the landscape by having it exist as a little offensive torrent which helps them in their work. They’re always going to manipulate the narrative and censor opposing speech in spaces they control. “Free speech” is always going to turn out to be a fiction once it’s speech they don’t agree with. Because that is their ideology: That it’s okay to cheat as long as you’re on their team, and the other team doesn’t deserve any type of human rights.
“Free speech” doesn’t mean one moderator can run their forum however they want. It doesn’t mean we have to listen to one person forever, however much they want to say, but they don’t have to listen to us if they don’t want to. It doesn’t work the way you’re saying it does. It’s a philosophy of freedom of ideas. It’s a shared social contract that comes with obligations, not just grants of what you’re allowed to do. It’s the idea that you may not agree with someone, but you need to hear them out and then engage honestly with what they’re saying. That we need to live together and protect the weakest or “wrongest” among us. That being a society as free humans with our inalienable rights is more important than our team winning. It’s not a set of code that provides everyone write access to the space, or a total-openness-of-moderation policy. It is a commitment to the idea that if we talk honestly with each other and respect each other, even if we don’t agree about something, we’ll be able to work it out, because even someone who you think is wrong as hell might have a point. The crucial piece you’re missing is that it has to cut both ways. Someone who’s claiming the shield, has to be also willing to provide the same shield to others in the space, and otherwise it is completely fair not to welcome them. That’s why every public servant has to swear an oath to the constitution. The oath is not “Now that I’m in charge I solemnly swear to do whatever the fuck I want, until someone else gets in charge and they can do the same to me.”
If someone’s not on board for it cutting both ways, but they’re hijacking some kind of open tool or democratic public space to make a pretense that they do so they can advance their agenda of killing or imprisoning their enemies and shutting down democracy in a place it used to exist, most reasonable people will tell them to get the fuck out. That’s not censorship. It’s self-defense. It’s the same as ejecting from a public meeting someone who blows hard on a whistle every time their opponents try to speak, passes them notes that they might be killed or their house burned down if they keep talking, and then stands up with a quavering voice and swears their commitment to open society and freedom, and says they can’t understand all these people who are aiming such hateful behavior at them because they said they were a bad person. I can easily find examples of all of that on your instance, I can be specific if you want me to. Do you want me to?
I’m not trying to bully you or your instance or anything personal towards you. But you guys have suffered reputational harm at this point because you’ve welcomed people who are actively trying to do harm to the rest of us. Not just harm but literal death and literal imprisonment. A lot of us, I assume, are thinking about fleeing the country, getting weapons to defend ourselves. A lot of us are real fucking worried about friends and family. We’re wondering what the fuck we even do now. We’re within our rights to want nothing more to do with you, if you welcome the viewpoint that all of that is okay. Or, not even that: If you welcome people who are okay lying about their own viewpoint and manipulating the space to try to advance that work and make it more effective.
Like I say: There is a genuine viewpoint that’s adjacent to what you’re saying that I agree with. I don’t think most of the Republican rank-and-file is our enemy (even if we might wind up in a war with them soon, depending). I don’t think shutting out particular honest political viewpoints is the way. I think we have to be able to talk to each other to even be able to begin to approach and heal from this fucking chasm in our society. It goes deeper than just the current Republican regime. But, like I say, once we get back down the rank-and-file level of individual people:
IT
HAS
TO
GO
BOTH
WAYS
!lemmysilver
He is definitely a Trump fanboy, I really don’t care about Trump that much - it’s OK to see things differently. I personally cringe at that community too, but they are not breaking our rules. My personal views have nothing to do with it.
I think it is an insult to anyone who has had to endure the horrors of nazi concentration camps, to make that comparison so loosely. They were nothing like what is happening today in America, not even close.
I’m not going to dive into actual US politics (are Republicans nazis, are the Democrats nazis, etc) since I’m not even American and that’s a cesspit I have no business in. Depending on who you talk to, someone else is always the nazi. What I can say is that our instance has clear rules on the type of content we accept, just like everyone else, and we certainly do not tolerate “nazi” content, such as calls for violence, racial discrimination, ultra nationalism, etc. You will not find anything that resembles that.
On a human level, I agree with the points you make. I certainly wouldn’t want you to subject yourself to content you don’t like either, and Lemmy has come a long way to give users control over what they see. All I’m pointing out is that HC would welcome anyone under the same rules. We are no more a Republican instance than we are a Democrat one. I can’t control if people agree or disagree with you, but I have no tolerance for personal attacks, for example. You will find that starting a community on HC would really be no different than starting a community somewhere else.
If people legitimately wanted HC to be a different instance, then they would join it and transform through their own content, to the point where it becomes majority. But people do not want that, it’s easier and more convenient to point the finger and accuse us of being baddies.
Buddy if you can’t click a link and read a simple definition, I don’t know what to tell you. I didn’t say you have specific nazi content, I said you are suffering from the nazi bar problem.
You’re saying it’s a “nazi bar”, so surely there would be nazi content everywhere that would prove your accusation.
I’m saying it’s not a nazi anything. Can you point to the content that makes you think otherwise?
Yeah… You should take sites, though. (Take the one that cares about human rights)
At least you’re saying it outright.
I suggest that most people in this thread are ultimately upset that we don’t take their side. It’s a bit ironic on a federated platform.
Lol maybe if “your” side didn’t want to remove rights and freedoms, and install fascist dictators, you’d have a point
Yep. Lemmy doesn’t like to admit that they are just as hateful and anti-diversity as the very people they say they are fighting against.
Plenty of Lemmy posters openly call for death of republicans. It’s sickening.
If anyone does they are the minority of the users and are quickly moderated and banned.
But as you are well aware you can just make a new account in a new instance and keep trolling right Donald J Musk?
Is that what we’re calling it?