Based on concerns from both the admin team and most users here, the lemmy.ml admin team decided to add wolfballs.com to our blocklist. There is just too much reactionary content that breaks almost all the rules we have here.
It’s natural for open instances like this one to develop blocklists organically, and so far we’ve only felt it necessary to block 2 instances. If there’s any concerns about other instances that we should keep an eye on, let us know.
You’d prefer that people be allowed to use illegal means to end (once and for all) potential future Hitlers? Or, really, anyone they somehow believe to be potential future Hitlers?
If there is a third alternative, I’m just not seeing it.
I guess we’ll all be forced to relive (and ignore) Treaties of Versailles forever.
… Yeah, I would prefer that people use illegal means to end potential future Hitlers.
Ok.
So…
You know, we have the scientific method in the realm of history and politics. You can analyze which interests someone supports, which goals someone has and what policies and action they support. Because it’s not about killing a literal future Hitler but instead fighting any kind of reactionary, anti-people ideology, this is quite straightforward.
That’s a strange question because we don’t live in a science fiction novel. We are not trying to assassinate little baby Hitler clones, we are trying to lead the class struggle against future and current fascist and reactionary movements.
Again, I don’t know why your political conclusions come from science fiction novels.
Ah. The one that has us run the experiment many times before we jump to conclusions?
So like, if 1 million people had those interests and never became Hitler or Mussolini, then we invalidate those interests as a determinant of whether they’re actually going to become another Hitler?
It sounds like you’re now trying to twist science so you can use it as an excuse to unperson those you don’t like. Extrajudicially.
No, instead you’re suggesting assassinating real, live people. That you don’t like.
You always say ‘people you don’t like’ as if it was about people who liked movies I thought were bad, and not those who literally organize the genocide of me and those like me.
I used to find it weird that centrists would always say “people you don’t like” when talking about the enemies of Socialism, because we’ve well defined who our intended target of so-called “authoritarian” measures are. But then it occurred to me that this has always been the centre’s rhetoric on the matter. Ever since the Bolshevik won the revolution and started to implement revolutionary policy to fight reactionary belief systems, the centre has implied the policies were random, without a clear target.
The reality of their tactic is actually quite simple, however. The centre has to put our targets into the abstract, or the people who listen to them will realize our targets align with their class interests. Our targets aren’t randomly selected from a list of people we’ve just decided not to like, it’s oppressors and the supporters of the oppressors, the capitalist class and the supporters of the capitalist class, etc. If the people who listen to the rhetoric of centrists learned who we really want to go after - racists, sexists, people who abuse their power to implement policies of hate, etc - they’d radicalize out of the centre.
also, mind you, the person being argued with was banned from Lemmygrad for arguing in favour of the Nazis a while ago. So I highly doubt anything we could say to them will change their mind on this subject.
Right, and I think it’s important to bring light to this when engaging with people who want endless academic debates about free speech.
I guess I communicate about it differently, as I try to use broad language that can make sense to liberals and people who are disengaged from politics, but for me it’s a different way of saying a similar thing.
This is what’s so disingenuous about the argument. We’re not talking about gray areas. There are shades of gray, however, in addition to shades of gray, there’s a very clear subset where there’s some stuff that falls into an indisputably bad category. Some people like to pretend this isn’t true and put it forward like high minded intellectual nuance.
This entire conversation is immaterial because Hitler was not the Great Man who single-handedly caused the Holocaust to happen. Fascism is a response to liberal capitalism and is based in the material conditions of the people. Mussolini himself was a labor organizer who spoke at length about class (after he denounced socialism, of course). Killing all potential Hitlers is not a material response to fascism. Socialism is.