I’m simply asking this question because of Lemmygrad.ml existing, and that there isn’t a far-right equivalent of it yet. If Lemmygrad has any standing for its right to exist under free speech, where is the line drawn for other extremist political ideologies? If Holodomor skepticism is allowed, then what stops Holocaust skepticism? (as it is generally accepted the Holodomor was man-made). I’m simply wondering what gives far-left politics a right to promote such extremist views in the Fediverse, when their far-right counterparts would be Defederated in minutes.
Because the people who run the majority of instances are leftists. And despite my many grievances with marxist-leninist ideology and particularly with stalinism, I’d rather talk with tankies who at least claim to respect me as a minority than nazis who actively wish death upon me.
Leftism should be tolerated because leftism advocates for the rights of the workers. Leftism is the way the world can and should be. Whichever flavor of it, they’re all better than fascism. And wherever fascists will gather their sole purpose is to propagate hatred against minorities. Leftists are overwhelming welcoming and accepting of minorities. They are no threat to the acceptance of marginalized peoples.
Can’t agree more. It’s amazing just how many posts I’ve seen since joining Lemmy equating the left and right, as if “workers should own the means of production” is just as bad as the literal genocide advocated by the hard right.
That said, given that lemmy.ml (and maybe latte.isnot.coffee?) is run by pro-CCP tankies, I think it’s worth taking a second to say that defending the genocide of the Uighurs is majorly fucked and the vast majority of hard leftists here on Lemmy vehimently oppose that.
But one can’t be hard-right and not be for genocide, basically. Not so on the left.
But one can’t be hard-right and not be for genocide, basically. Not so on the left.
Bingo. Are some hard-leftists shitty authoritarians? Unfortunately yeah. Are there any hard-rightists who aren’t shitty authoritarians? I’ve yet to meet one.
Eh… I have met enough far-left authoritarians who are openly racist, anti-lgbtq, and who advocated for violence against people solely based on their family background that I don’t think the extreme right has a monopoly on hate.
I don’t think that level of intolerance should be tolerated, regardless of whether someone is on the right or left of the spectrum.
I have too, but let’s be realistic, and accept the honest fact that in far left spaces, racism, homophobia, transphobia etc us far, far less acceptable than in far right spaces. I’ve hung out with hardcore marxists and despite not necessarily agreeing with their political takes I’ve never had to feel uncomfortable with my race or sexuality in the same way that even mildly right-leaning folks have made me feel.
Yes, I’m sure racism and homophobia exist on the far left, but it’s an extreme minority on that side compared to on the right where it’s a pretty mild take, and treating the two as remotely equivalent is very harmful in itself.
Just want to clarify, nowhere did I equate the two. I’m simply saying I personally wouldn’t tolerate intolerance regardless of the political ideology. The previous poster suggested that they didn’t see such type behaviors from far-left folks, I had a different experience.
I totally agree far-right ideologies are inherently intolerant.
I love “i know all right spaces are intolerant but ive know some bad leftists so they are exactly the same” 😩
Quit trolling, if you have anything to add to the discussion feel free to do so.
Like I said, I don’t give a shit if you’re left or right, if you advocate for the persecution of someone solely based their religious, sexual orientation, ethic background and etc, I am not interested in hearing what you have to say.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 3•1 year ago
Try being an Uyghur in China, then, or a Ukrainian among Stalinists. You will not feel accepted.
Unless it’s racism against Asians, that’s rampant on the left.
I’d love to see any evidence of this
Affirmative action…
Not really…
Affirmative action was specifically designed to lift up groups that are born into poverty far more than others in the United States. Asian-Americans don’t fall under that category.
You’re not arguing in good faith at all. You don’t have any evidence, you just have wild accusations.
tf are you talking about?
You can’t be a fascist and not be bigoted. You can be a marxist-leninist and not as a rule hate minorities. I encourage you to go to lemmygrad yourself, see if you find any hatred of minorities being tolerated there. You just won’t.
I can coexist in a space with them, they’re not going to start calling for the genocide of minority groups. They may dispute the way historical events transpired, but there’s a fundamental difference between “these events didnt happen the way you’re describing” and a fascist saying “let’s mass murder all the minorities because they’re biologically impure”. I can coexist in a space with one, with the other my murder (or the murder of any other marginalized group) is as a rule being outright advocated for.
No matter how hard you try tankies even at their worst are not fascists. To try and equate the two is beyond ridiculous. You can point out that some historical regimes have done a lot of horrible things, fair enough. But ideologically marxist-leninists are not comparable on any level to fascists.
I can not, and will never under any circumstances tolerate the presence of fascism to any degree.
OP mentioned Holodomor, so I’ll just point out that ML’s generally don’t deny that there was a famine, or even that it was exacerbated by bad policy. The specific point of contention is whether it was intentional.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question
Even historians debate this, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to characterize it as “genocide denial”.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 2•1 year ago
It’s a false “question” just like the “question” of whether the Holocaust of German Jews occurred. Genocide denial is precisely what it is.
I wasn’t really talking about lemmygrad, even though they have some VERY questionable defense of authoritarian policies. I have met far-leftists who were more than eager to call for the genocide of minorities under the guise of class revolution.
Personally, I draw the bar at the intolerance of other people regardless of whether that ideology is on the left or right. Hell, I’m sure there are some radical centrists who are extremely intolerant of [insert x people] as well.
I’m a leftist and consider myself moderately well-educated on the topic, but I don’t understand the connection between class revolution and genociding minorities.
Cambodian revolution is a perfect example of this. Killing of targeted minorities under the guise of class revolution.
Whenever someone advocates for violence against some group of people, it inevitably turns into some type of persecution thats colored by the prejudices of those in power and within the existing social norms.
Plenty of anti colonial militia groups turned against minority groups when they took power.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 2•1 year ago
Genocidal people are always looking for ways to disguise their intentions.
What does “far-left” mean to you, then? If someone with views entirely counter to progressive ideas just calls themselves “far-left” while spewing hateful garbage, do you just accept that they are part of the left?
Politics isn’t team sports. Your political association is defined by your views, not by what side you claim to be on.
Then it’s just a “no true Scotsman” argument.
There are plenty of examples of leftist governments who were openly hostile to minorities.
Not really. If someone says “I am a woodworker” but you never see anything they make from wood, they have no woodworking tools, they don’t know about woodworking techniques, they don’t attend a woodworking club or job or class they’re just… not a woodworker.
People who claim to be leftists without doing the required actions aren’t leftists. Liking the aesthetics isn’t enough.
So was the USSR not a leftist government?
I feel like we’re going into the semantics of who is a “true” leftist.
Sorry I missed this.
I feel like this is potentially a bait post but if I steel man you for the sake of civility and learning:
I am not the most knowledgeable about the USSR, my grandparents came from occupied poland and thus had certain opinions, that’s a large part of my exposure and likely biases me. That said, the revolutionary movement and corresponding government seems to have gone through many phases, and have expressed various degrees of leftism at various times. Was assassinating lots of people, forcibly occupying people, collaborating with nazi germany, and engaging in genocide very leftist? I would say definitionally no. Even for the time there was considerable pushback from other leftist personalities and organisations.
On the other hand for many, many people there was massive increases in freedom, prosperity, and rights compared to tzarist russia. Including my grandmother, who was allowed to hold a technical office job! wow! (until she moved to Australia and was forced to work in a factory and be treated like an idiot. Not wow).
This seems like one of those situations where trying to fit something into a simplistic box will inevitably break down. I feel comfortable saying the USSR accomplished both wonderful and terrible things, that overall it was probably better than tsarist russia but it fell short of the ideals that founded it.
If I met someone who say volunteered to feed the homeless, agitated for unionism at work, volunteered to educate disadvantaged people, but also thought I should be executed as a social deviant (I’m mega queer) I would probably call them leftist even while I thought they were massively misguided and extremely dangerous. I’ll note I’ve never actually met anyone like that though.
The left-right tolerance vs traditionalist alignment breaks down outside of the western/Eurocentric context.
For example, most folks in China who advocate for left leaning economic policies are much more prone to be traditionalists who are hostile towards LGBTQ and religious people. Where as social progressives are mich more likely to advocate for less state intervention in the economy.
So I have meant plenty of people who, while advocating for the wealth transfer from the rich, also were extremely intolerant of “social deviants”
It seems like folks here would not call these people leftists, but they sure do, and so does most of the world. Hence why I made the reference to no true Scotsman.
So was the USSR not a leftist government?
It was not.
Let us know when the ussr is doing anything modern. You just keep moving the goalposts.
What goalpost?
I literally said intolerance exists across all political spectrum, and I will not tolerate that whether someone is “on my team” or not.
Is that such a controversial opinion?
This is like saying “No true Scotsman was born and raised in Istanbul, speaks only Turkish, and has never even visited Scotland or ever mentioned being intereted in doing so.” For example, the “National Socialists” were not actually socialists even though they used socialist-like policies exclusively on an ethnic national basis, and no one serious is arguing that they were on the left. The left wing represents social equality and progressivism, while the right wing represents tradition and hierarchy. This has been the understanding of these terms since they were invented during the French Revolution.
And the left wing politicians during the French Revolution never prosecuted minorities in the name of the republic?
Damn, what happened to the entire Occitaian culture?
Oh wait, it was deemed an enemy of progress.
- The monarchy had reasons to resemble the Tower of Babel; in democracy, leaving the citizens to ignore the national language [that of Paris], unable to control the power, is betraying the motherland… For a free people, the tongue must be one and the same for everyone. -Bertrand Barère
If you want to use that definition of left right from the French Revolution, fine, are they not “left” when they literally sat on the left side of the National Assembly?
Interesting point you bring up. You are absolutely correct about the consequences of the revolution and the involvement of hierarchical thinking of the Parisians towards the other ethnic groups around them. The Parisians who went and carried out the genocides may have believed that their actions conformed to “Liberty, fraternity, and equality” of the French people, but I’m not sure it was the logical conclusion to the ideology of the revolution, or the left. Looking back from my modern perspective completely out of context I would say these actions went against the professed ideology of the revolution before reality came in and complicated everything.
What I’m saying is that the left is the idea of progressivism and social equality, while the right is the idea of hierarchy and tradition. Actors who intend for progressivism and social equality can, due to the various pressures of the real world, can end up taking right wing measures as above. If someone supports the idea of tradition and hierarchy in the first place, I would not consider them left wing regardless of how they label themselves.
I can respect that.
So, does simply saying your are a Scotsman make you one, despite having no cultural or genetic heritage to that effect? This might be news to people, but there are, indeed, people who aren’t Scottish. 😮
I have met enough far-left authoritarians who are openly racist, anti-lgbtq, and who advocated for violence against people solely based on their family background that I don’t think the extreme right has a monopoly on hate.
Yeah, they’re banned from lemmygrad. Rule 5:
- No capitalist apologia / anti-communism.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful. This is a safe space where all comrades should feel welcome, this includes a warning against uncritical sectarianism.
- No porn or sexually explicit content (even if marked NSFW).
- No right-deviationists (patsocs, nazbols, strasserists, duginists, etc).
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 5•1 year ago
Denying the Uyghur genocide is an act of bigotry, no different from denying the Holocaust of German Jews, yet such content is openly tolerated there.
Unless you’re Jewish, the far left has had a huge blind spot for anti-Semitism over the last few years.
I’m not saying that all leftists aren’t bigots or that bigotry never happens in leftist spaces, but bigotry is the rule in fascist ones. Fascism is bigotry, it’s a core part of the ideology itself. For that reason they’re not comparable.
That sounds a little bit like the no true Scotsman argument
It isn’t at all a no true Scotsman argument, what are you talking about?
You can be a leftist and not be bigoted. Bigots also join the left, we can’t help that, but that’s because they personally are bigoted, not because the ideology is. In fact, most modern leftism argues that bigotry is fundamentally at odds with the core ideals, and in my experience a majority of the left, at least in English speaking countries, wants to distance these people.
You cannot be a fascist without being bigoted. Being bigoted is part of the ideology. It aims to spread and teach bigotry, that’s the purpose of it.
No true Scotsman would be “yeah but the anti Semitic leftists aren’t real leftists”, which isn’t what anyone said.
I disagree, but if we argue, it’ll go nowhere.
There’s not really anything to disagree with. What you’re calling a No True Scotsman isn’t a No True Scotsman argument in the slightest.
You might be mistaking denouncing Israel’s treatment of Palestininians as somehow anti-Semitic.
My philosophy has been that If you hate people you’re never met, I hate you. Otherwise, let’s have a drink and talk out whatever the differences are.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 4•1 year ago
The people who made abortion illegal in most of the United States have harmed millions of innocent people without meeting them.
Yeah, the concept behind the fediverse nests pretty well with leftist ideals, so it’s no surprise that leftism has thrived here. An open-source site that anyone can host, with no centralized power structure, and that openly promotes opening and administrating your own server? The idea behind it is inherently anti-fascist, because fascism relies on consolidating power so only an elite landed gentry are allowed to make decisions.
Should political extremism, far-left or far-right, be an allowed part of Lemmy’s Fediverse?
by design it literally cannot be “allowed” or “disallowed”, it just Is and Can Be a part of the Fediverse. you as an individual have absolutely no control over who uses Lemmy or ActivityPub generally, in the same way Mastodon can’t stop a community like Gab from using their software as long as they abide by the guidelines. also, there is a “far-right equivalent of Lemmygrad” (exploding-heads) and you’re literally asking the body questions on an instance which defederates from lemmygrad (which many instances also do). this is such a perplexing set of questions in general.
Account is 3 days old. Maybe the whole idea of Lemmy and the Fediverse is still perplexing to them? This response feels needlessly passive-aggressive; seems like maybe there’s some room to afford grace?
This response feels needlessly passive-aggressive; seems like maybe there’s some room to afford grace?
we’ve collectively spent like 6 hours today just trying to get the site up and functioning because Lemmy is nightmarish to work with, you’re gonna have to forgive me a bit if i’m more blunt in fielding questions which have been litigated for as long as we’ve been here and get re-litigated on the time scale of every few days. this is a very played out discourse in general. i would encourage people to just lurk more to answer stuff like this
Is there a special reason that you personally have to answer OP’s question at a time when you feel you need to be short with people?
They’re an admin and the site is 18+ so sometimes admins have to be firm. They only have so many people and so much labor and they get little needling questions like this that aren’t really of value to reply to,
probably? Who knows!
The post is a dog whistle. Far-right communities have existed and still exist, OP is misrepresenting the current status to paint one of the extremes as unfairly perjudiced by the other.
Very extreme assumptions about me. I’m disabled and would be killed by any far-right government, if one were in power. I was just trying to ask a question: at what point does free speech end and dangerous ideas begin? I wasn’t trying to say “hey, that’s not fair!!! let racist timmy here if we’re gonna have Lemmygrad :((”, I was simply asking why any form of extremism is tolerated(and why there’s some big deal about exploding heads, which I’ve just recently learned about, and far less talk about Lemmygrad). I personally don’t feel either should be allowed on Lemmy, and that any instances pertaining to extremist ideology should be defederated. Also, I apologize for asking this question on Beehaw, of all Lemmy instances, when none of my arguments pertain to here; I feel my post would’ve been far better had I directly mentioned Lemmy.world/made this post on Lemmy.world. (which is still federated with Lemmygrad, if I am understanding things correctly)
I personally don’t feel either should be allowed on Lemmy, and that any instances pertaining to extremist ideology should be defederated.
i am pleased to report you’ve picked a good instance for this since this is more-or-less our policy.
Not here to say you’re wrong for asking and I’ve said so in the other comments but —
I personally don’t feel either should be allowed on Lemmy, and that any instances pertaining to extremist ideology should be defederated.
There’s no central authority on Lemmy, so nobody really dictates (or can) what’s “allowed” or not, what should be defederated or not. Even if anyone of us feels very strongly they shouldn’t be. The answer to this is finding/starting an instance which has moderation/federation policies to address your needs and standards.
For us, Beehaw defederates from instances promoting any kind of unkind/bad faith behavior or bigotry whether that be genocide denial, racism, etc., which is why explodingheads and lemmygrad are both defederated.
Sorry if this is like the nth time you’ve heard these words lol.
The point is that beehaw can defederate from any instances it likes, but anyone can make Lemmy instances by design. Literally no one controls Lemmy because anyone can just… make a server. That’s how it should be.
I don’t understand what argument you’re making. I was about to say you’re welcome to make your own instance and federate or defederate with whoever you want, but then I noticed you’re on beehaw. They already have defederated with lemmygrad. So what’s the problem?
Btw, MLs suck but let’s not pretend they’re the same or as bad as Nazis. That’s a false equivalence.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 2•1 year ago
In what meaningful way are they different?
I also have a hard time with this question.
They are both State Capitalist systems. Both create superior classes of people i.e. Aryan, New Soviet Man, etc. Both strengthen domination power heirarchies.
At least Marxist-Leninist-Maoist want to reach communism by trusting benevolent leaders willfully giving up power. I would love to hear about the magical transition from domination heirarchy to communism.
Why would an individual at the top of the heirarchy ever relinquish power peacefully?
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 1•1 year ago
At least Marxist-Leninist-Maoist want to reach communism by trusting benevolent leaders willfully giving up power.
I’m not sure about Marx and Lenin, but Mao does not belong on that list. He basked in luxury while tens of millions starved to death, then handed power to the next generation of brutal tyrants, not to the people. His intentions were anything but benevolent.
Why would an individual at the top of the heirarchy ever relinquish power peacefully?
It has happened on occasion—kings have on occasion decided to replace themselves with democracy—but you’re right, it isn’t common. Most people at the top of the hierarchy got there by clawing their way up, because they crave power.
- shiveyarbles ( @shiveyarbles@beehaw.org ) 43•1 year ago
I mean, how scary is the far left? They want to feed too many hungry kids? Make healthcare affordable? Respect basic human rights? It seems disingenuous to compare the left to the right, I mean one side is too nice and the other wants to tear down democracy.
Damned communists wanting everybody to (checks notes) live in reasonable comfort, without fear of destitution and homelessness
Yeah, but they want to tear down power structures while doing it. That’s what scares them.
This reads like such flame-bait/rage-bait, sigh… but I will respond under the assumption you are a confused newbie to Lemmy and give you some slack.
Lemmy and many Fediverse apps are set up so that it is not possible to banish/censor an instance from the entire network, besides methods to take the server offline itself including DMCA/DDoS/lawsuits/government seizure etc., so lemmygrad will continue to “exist” just as much as exploding-heads, Gab, Truthsocial and other far-right sites will.
Keep in mind: Many major instances (including beehaw) are already de-federated from lemmygrad. Constant CCP and СССР propaganda gets tiring quickly.
As much as an instance owner is given a right to unfettered speech, they and other instande owners also have the right to control what speech from others they want on the platform. Being blunt here, right-wing instances being immediately de-federated is an indication that many instance owners don’t want the diarrhea of extreme rhetoric pouring in, so the best course of action for those users would be to find their own toilet.
I’m gonna be annoying and I know it, but I really hate that people equate the far left and the far right. What does the far left want? Destroy capitalism. What does the far right want? Kill all queer people and then some. For some people, the opposite of Nazism is Communism when these barely have anything to do with each other.
The far left can be annoying, sure. But in the end, the vast majority of them are not actively trying to justify mass murder. That’s a key difference. Also, one has dramatically more influence then the other. So the question should be:
Should the far right be an allowed part of Lemmy’s fediverse?
Which is a misunderstanding of the fediverse I think. We can’t forbid them to be anywhere on an open source and defedrated platform. We can however, ask if they should be tolerated? And that’s up to the various servers to decide.
Beehaw already has a stance on it, though: No. Hence the recent defederation. And I agree. Fuck Nazis.
This is my stance on it too. People like to treat today’s political environment as two sides of a coin diametrically opposed, but that’s not how political ideology works, it’s more nuance than that, like a sphere. I get why American’s do it with a two-party system, but that doesn’t mean you’re all in on one or another, people are more nuance than that too. People who run with this mentality that there are only two sides to politics often fall into the mistake of equating to two as equal sides as you said. It makes it hard to acknowledge the difference of the extremes and their intentions.
Though I think the biggest reason people are less tolerant the alt right is because there are more reasons outside of politics to be against the alt right. Outside of politics, alt lefties usually get into arguments with economist and capitalist because extreme leftist have intensions to change the economic landscape. Whether for better or worse is precisely what they’re arguing about. There’s also the more fringe alt left (tankies I believe) who will get in a tussle with historians and survivors alike, but their conversations chill out once they realize no one’s condoning anything (usually, idk all you tankies).
Meanwhile the alt right targets specific freedoms enshrined by the US constitution and the Human Bill of Rights. The alt right wants a say in who you marry, whether or not you should adopt, religious rule you should abide by, who should/shouldn’t get to vote, whether the vote should be decided by the people or legislator (you now Democracy and all), your identity, your medical decisions, your family planning, your education, and the very books you read. There’s a desire to snub out individuality if it doesn’t abide by the alt rights idea of “normal.” All of these stances directly invade individual rights of many people and their ability to pursue their respective happiness. While there’s political reasons to speak out against these stances, there’s also moral obligation and the simple instinct of survival pushing back on these perspectives. This creates a large group of people who not only disagree, but whose existence is literally threaten, there’s no room for tolerance when lives and freedom are on the line. The reason alt right has a tough time is because most Americans still hold age-old American values of liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness.
You cannot stop someone from downloading a software to open their own instance. What you can do is to block bad actors/cut federation with them. Which is what most instances do with both alt-right/nazi and tankie instances.
The premise is that it’s up to the admins of each instance to choose. Inherently in the design, nothing is globally allowed or not. And the less-preferable ideas will appear to fewer people because they will be defederated more often.
Fwiw, lemmygrad is defederated from many instances.
Your last sentence is how you can tell this person is not asking in good faith.
If you explicitly define what far-left and far-right means, you could probably have a straightforward answer. You mention holodomor skepticism and holocaust skepticism as some kind of far-left and far-right examples (unless I am misreading your comment), but I personally am not sure exactly what the holodomor was. I assume it was some genocide-level event perpetuated by the USSR, but I am not at all sure. Maybe my internet experience is in some kind of enclave composed of SF literature discussions, 8-bit computers and King of the Hill clips, but I really don’t run across holodomor skepticism at all.
Of course, I know what holocaust skepticism is (the denial that millions of Jews [and a whole bunch of gays and Christians and Roma peoples) were systematically killed by the German regime during WW2, as directed by Hitler), but that’s only because the types of people who would embrace (or worse) holocaust skepticism are feeling more emboldened by the current political climate.
Personally, I define far-left and far-right as being ‘armed militants’ and/or ‘large groups of people calling for the eradication of one or more types of people.’ ‘Types of people’, in this case, means ‘people who are born with a certain characteristic that is not changeable, such as race or sexuality’ Currently, we have armed militants protesting libraries (libraries, of all places!) but I have yet to see an armed militant demanding government-funded healthcare or seizing the means of production. Therefore, you will have to forgive me if I don’t buy into the ‘both sides’ equivalence that your post requires the reader to hold.
When the far-left becomes as bad as the far-right, we can (and should!) talk. Until then, miss me with that shit.
I personally am not sure exactly what the holodomor was. I assume it was some genocide-level event perpetuated by the USSR
The Holodomor was a man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine; there is some argument as to whether the intent was to kill off Ukrainians to stifle their independence movement at the time, or if the greater USSR just didn’t care about them at all.
Regardless, most of the crops grown in Ukraine at the time were shipped out to other parts of the USSR, leaving little to eat in Ukraine, and causing millions of deaths. Total death count is also iffy, but certainly rivals the Holocaust.
Compare the Irish potato famine, where Britain enforced export of potatoes from Ireland despite widespread Irish famine. Same thing, larger scale.
I keep seeing these posts about whether something should be “allowed”, and keep asking myself how people could so fundamentally misunderstand the fediverse when I’ve only been here a month and can see this is a silly question.
How are you going to stop an open source, federated community from having instances where far right or far left stuff happens? You can’t. All you can do is decide who you federate with on the instance you own. So join an instance who is careful about its membership and defererates instances that have far right or left activity. That’s all you can do.
There is no “king of the fediverse” making decrees about what is/is not allowed.
This is a complete misunderstanding of what Lemmy and the Fediverse more generally is. It’s quite literally impossible, by design to keep anyone out globally. That’s the whole point. There’s no centralized server where someone can decide “Oh, we’re just gonna prevent this person’s physical hardware from spinning up a Lemmy server and connecting it to the internet”.
If there were, it’d be like Twitter, or Reddit, or all of the other centralized sites where moderation seems cool until you disagree with their choices in what they do or don’t moderate. Beehaw can moderate things how they please. You could moderate things however you please by spinning up your own little instance and just using it as an account hosting instance. Once again, by design.
Do not tolerate the intolerant!
We should tolerate every ideology and political flavour as long as its supporters are not actively attacking or suppressing other views and especially targeting vulnerable people. The goal should be to create a welcoming place of free speech for all and this requires to eliminate those who do not support this goal or actively work against it - namely fascists (and that includes more than just the old and alt right).
Anti-fascism ist necessary action against those that claim freedom of speech but abuse it for ideological warfare with the ultimate goal of abolition of free speech.
Yes, but no one is obligated to federate their shit, or host their shit.
Tankies aren’t far-left. They’re liberals (right-wing) under a red flag. “Communist” countries are simply state capitalism. The relations that matter—workers owning and self-managing their productive lives—wasn’t, and isn’t, present. To the worker, the boss is the boss, and exploitation is exploitation. Even Lenin admitted he wasn’t establishing socialism, but allegedly waiting around until it grew out of the German industrial core of capitalism. Meanwhile, he destroyed the worker councils and slaughtered actual leftists as “counter-revolutionaries” (e.g. the Kronstadt Rebellion). His was just an excuse for more capitalism. Nothing leftist about it. Don’t tolerate apologia and equivocation. IOW this: Noam Chomsky on Leninism.
Should actual leftists (anarchists, other libertarian socialists, and even the state socialists who at least don’t try to pretend that authoritarian shit under various red flags met our goals) be “allowed”? Of fucking course! Liberty, equality, and fraternity should always be goals to strive for, and liberalism stands directly in the way of those goals.
Right-wing extremism? Fuck no.
Fuck the far right in all venues and platforms.