Looking at you, leftymemes

ugh

groupthink central, do NOT divert an inch from the state sanctioned opinions, OR ELSE

unmoderated internet spaces are quickly overrun with bigotry, csam, and spam.

if, in the name of "free speech", you only moderate the csam and spam, the space will be primarily occupied by people looking for a forum that welcomes bigotry.

respect to @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com for rm'ing bigotry and not letting childish anarchist free speech ideals cause lemmy.dbzer0.com to be a nazi bar 🥂

This is very true - I usually refer to it as "BOFH behavior". I think it stems from many people who end up hosting or moderating feeling that they themselves have been marginalised before so "now they're going to show them!".

A great example is a Mastodon instance where if you don't agree with the site's admin they'll block you at the server level instead of from their personal account. The belief is that if they have an opinion that opinion must then be enforced for everyone else under their control too.

Okay, I'll bite. I need to add to my block list anyway.

Y'all have heard of the Nazi Bar problem, right? Paradox of intolerance? Which turns out not to be a paradox after all? You should def look that one up rather than waiting for me to type it all out.

You know that anarchism doesn't mean no rules right? It just means no rulers, but that's not how it works on Lemmy or any social media of this type for that matter.

right-wingers aren't allowed on leftist spaces. nothing positive comes from that.

Are you really comparing a completely optional forum to a society where people can and will point guns at you?

From my experience, no moderator enjoys the job. And the job is tougher than you think.

I have a pretty low opinion of moderators generally.

In the vast majority of cases, the people who actually want to be moderators are precisely the worst kinds of people to do the job.

Of course there are exceptions but all too often they're doing it because they like the power and attention.

Which of these best describes your opinion that the Anarchists disapprove of?:

Sexism,

Racism,

White Supremacy (or any ethnic-supremacy),

Homophobia (or any sexuality-phobia),

Fascism,

Genocide,

Drug-phobia,

Ethnic-, gender-, sexuality-, ableist-, etc., based slurs,

Oath-taking or pledge-taking.

You have to lick the correct footwear.

Aannndddd..... people "wonder why" nothing changes, when THEIR pack/herd/tribe gains power, or when another's does: it just goes 'round & 'round & 'round, again.

Until one has fundamentally altered one's own unconscious-mind,

altering one's own nature,

then the same nature as what created the problems we're caught-in, is all one has to wield.

"physician, 1st heal thyself" is the key, but nobody's got the guts to enforce the deep transformation.

( & I'm saying that while having failed to break unconscious-ignorance from this-incarnation/life, thus-far, myself, for decades.

It isn't easy, but if one never tries, it'll never have more than 0% chance of happening.

it'd be easier in a culture which accepted such transformations as valid, fersure, but that got eradicated by materialism, didn't it? )

aka Spot-on, Voidan@lemmy-dbzer0.com , spot-on.

( :

_ /\ _

Some of those who moderate postses!

Anybody who sees Authority as a responsability is naturally averse to having it because they would feel the weight of it and would feel bad if, whilst holding Authority, they made a mistake and others got in some way hurt because of that.

Those who see Authority as power to advance something (be it their own personal upsides or some idea they believe in) with little or no feeling of responsability towards others (be it not all directly or they've suppressed it by convincing themselves their actions are somehow "for the greater good" hence any bad they do with the authority has that grand excuse to salve their conscience), have no such aversion to holding authority.

That posture towards authority of people of the second kind applies more broadly to all manner of things which serve to pressure, convince or manipulate others (Authority is generally power force something on others) so of course they also have no aversion to using other such tools, including using ideology to manipulate others, and sometimes that means passing themselves as somebody who holds a certain ideology, and that includes Anarchism.

So yeah, you're going to find that certain people who parrot Anarchist talk aren't in fact people whose Principles mean they're naturally Anarchist but rather people being Performative Anarchists in order to fit-in and manipulate others driven by entirelly different Principles, and such people are absolutelly pro-Authority as long as they're in control of it.

In summary, there are two types of people who seem Anarchist:

• Those whose personal principles means they are averse to people controlling other people. There are naturally against any form of Authority.
• Those who want to control other people and are in a specific situation where Theatre Of Anarchism can advance their objectives. These are against forms of Authority which hinder their objectives but are in favor of forms of Authority which advance their objectives.

IMHO, the best way to spot the second kind from the first is to look for the often repetition of common slogans and having a superficial level of ideology with no actual tracing back to personal principles since they learned the ideology at an intellectual level rather than being drived by their Principles - i.e. what feels Right and what feels Wrong - to finding that formal ideology as something that fits them.

By the way, this method to identify the real ones from the performers also works for all other ideologies and even things like Faith - start paying attention and you'll spot all manner of teatrics around ideologies all across the entire political spectrum as well as in people professing some faith or other.