Basically, there was a discussion about how instances have rules and Feddit also needs to abide by local (Austrian) law to not get in legal trouble.
And I get called a Zionazi for saying that you cant just up and call for the massacre of civilians, regardless of which side you are on.
It’s also ironic for Dessalines to mock me for sticking to rules and laws to protect our instance.
Move the German instance out of Germany?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to limit antisemitism while still allowing antizionism?
Germany’s laws do often conflate the two (here’s an example), so that’s more tricky than it might seem.
So in light of that it may be wise to have the German instance not actually be in Germany.
Though as I said, that may not be feasible and hypothetically isn’t the only option. I don’t think either option is likely to be taken by the OP, I don’t even think bare minimum attempt not to support Zionism will be taken by them. Their behavior doesn’t show it. I feel like they would probably agree with what happened in the article I listed.
Your link actually highlights the issue why we need to be careful due to legal stuff.
Again, I am not the owner. And even if we moved the server, the law still applies to me and 95% of the users of Feddit.
Removed by mod
Gonna have to delete this comment since you haven’t edited it
Hey, probably not a good idea to be using triple quotes around certain words. It dips into the triple parentheses. Please edit.
This sounds like quite a reach, I looked in that article and found nothing on quote marks. I also googled it and found only mentions of parentheses. I also found this thread. So from what I see, it’s not grammatically correct, no. It’s a bit demeaning, but it is a huge reach to compare it to triple parentheses.
I gotta be super conservative with anything that may resemble a dogwhistle in this community. There was a fiasco a while ago where a user used a certain word that could be taken as fascist. I ended up having to do damage control and ban said user.
So please edit, just remove the triple quotations and any suggestions that the German government is being coerced with their hatespeech law.
Germany is not some dictatorship that bends rules. Hate speech legislation is in part determined by seasoned jurists specialized in hate speech cases and there are clear outlines. You are just mad because it doesn’t make exceptions.
To your question: If people glorify the war crimes of the IDF, are racist against Palestinians or are islamophobic of course they face consequences. But we don’t ban people just on the basis of being for or against Israel. It depends on the specifics.
I am mad because this type of legislation is inherently authoritarian and borderline fascist, it actually does benefit the modern Nazi party of Germany to stifle criticism and prevent historical comparisons. I’m not a neoliberal german nationalist like yourself so I’m not ever going to see that as okay, and the fact that you try to make anyone who disagrees with you out to be “just a bigot” continues to show what a sad pathetic neoliberal you are. I’m not scared or intimated by you. Maybe you’re used to people groveling before you because of your admin status and you think continuing to argue with me will intimidate me into apologizing or yeilding, but you have no points, no intelligent discussion of any kind. All you’ve offered is the same neoliberal Zionist apologia, and dismissal of anyone against you or feddit as ““bigots””.
Which comparisons exactly are prevented?
I can say the AfD is a nazi party. I can say I believe they are very similar to the NSDAP 100 years ago. I can say they oppose the German constitution, especially the human rights provisions.
Same with Israel: I can say Israel is fascist. I can compare it to apartheid. I can say Israel has since its founding enageged in ethnic cleansing and genocide.
The only comparisons banned are those considered hyperbolic. I cannot say the AfD plans to commit genocide because they simply don’t. I cannot say Israel is repeating the Holocaust because it’s obviously not. Anything off an order of magnitude or more is iffy at best and illegal at worst.
Really though, it’s a mild annoyance at worst to comply with hate speech laws. Slightly adjust what you want to say and you’re fine. There are far, far more restrictive German laws that actually stifle free speech - such as the ban on “protective weapons” during protests combined with police violence not being prosecuted.
mate it’s grossly offensive to call modern-day germans nazis.
AfD are nazis though.
yeah
prior to the edit it wasn’t mentioning AFD
I’ve heard the AFD referred to as modern day nazis. Maybe I should’ve embedded that for clarification. I was not saying Germans in general are Nazis.
thanks for the edit. while you’re at it, can you also edit out the triple quotation marks in your other comment?
It is pretty absurd to say the far right benefits from hate speech legislation when they are the ones mostly sued because of it. Don’t confuse hate speech with honor based crimes like libel which the far right can eventually use against critics. But we are also working on SLAPP regulation to stop frivilous lawsuits in their tracks.
Again I am not a neolib. I am a Eurocom.
And I don’t expect you to be scared or intimidated of me. I expect everyone to respect Feddit’s policy when interacting with it. No exceptions for antizionists are made.
This isn’t about making you apologize. I am not the one who went on the offensive and tried to coax others to brigade this thread.
They benefit because people can’t compare or call them the nazis they are. I already linked an article which shows this. Unfortunately I don’t think any understanding of this will be reached in this discussion.
Thanks, doesn’t change the fact that you act just like one (a neoliberal), you could tell me you’re a leftist anarchist and it wouldn’t change the fact you vomited lib talking points to justify Feddit’s atrocious behavior.
Good, because lots of admins do and it is patheic.
Nope I never mentioned this thread anywhere else. I offered a link to your profile on Lemmy.ml to show your last comments there before they banned you, to show the correlation, I never pointed anyone here or told them to go here. You really are pathetic.
Also yes you did mention this thread somewhere else. I got evidence.
That’s not how the anti-hatespeech law is written though. Don’t talk about stuff you know nothing about. Sechs, setzen!
Purely for curiosity’s sake, I don’t think Israel’s populace should be destroyed. Does that make me zionist?
Careful, that question is usually not asked in good faith.
On its own advocating against genocide doesn’t make one a Zionist. That question you phrased is usually made in bad faith to imply that Anti-Zionists fighting against occupation of Palestine are advocating the killing of the Jewish people already there. If one asks the question or states this with the intent of implying that Anti-Zionists are advocating violence towards jewish people, it is likely they are a Zionist, not for believing that people shouldn’t be killed but by making an implication in bad faith. An implication which is by nature a Zionist strawman.
The unfortunate is that there is a lot of blame directed towards the Jewish population for what is happening in Gaza. Being Jewish doesn’t magically mean that you have control of the Israeli government. The term “anti-zionist” is often used as a cover for people who hate the Jewish people rather than the leaders of the Israeli government.
This sounds like Zionist apologia to the max, and a Zionist strawman too. In fact the majority of anti-Zionists are against conflating the jewish people with Israel and their government. In fact a lot are fucking Jewish themselves. Antisemitism is a real problem and needs to be stood up against, but accusations of antisemitism are being made falsely these days and are being weaponized against criticism of Israel, and against the people criticizing Israel.
And right now, you are doing more of the latter than the former by blanket stating that we shouldn’t use “anti-Zionist” or even advocate against Zionism. You know, instead of to call out the anti-Semitic dipshits themselves claiming to be anti-Zionist. You are using a rhetorical tactic to try and claim it is antisemtic to be anti-Zionist and that is Zionist apologia.
And actually I would go as far as to say this rhetoric is directly harmful towards Jewish people, because using terms like “antisemitism” and antisemite" incorrectly, as ways to shut people down or suppress political views, or even unjustly attack people’s character makes these terms less meaningful, and ultimately undermines their effectiveness when they are more than justified. If “Antisemite” becomes the thing we call Greta Thunberg and people like her, who are not attacking Jewish people, who are standing up against the atrocities a government has committed (as well as the vile politics of a different government suppressing criticism of it) that ultimately bleaches the word of its meaning, a meaning which is very important and still valid today.
Hate speech is not a political view. It is just plain racism.
I never said it was, I said accusations of it are used as a political tool to silence people. Or do you think being opposed to Israel or their actions is hate speech? If you do that’s what I’m talking about when I say Zionist apologia.
Okay, look at it this way.
If you rely on collective guilt, then it is racist, then it is antisemitic. If you hold all or the majority of Israeli citizens or Jews responsible, you’re not being anti-zionist, you’re being racist.
Sounds very complicated. It’s not some chess move, just asking if it makes me a zionist.
I think you can understand and appreciate why it’s important to be very clear on this removing all but the smallest trace of ambiguity. Because in these situations, bad faith actors use ambiguity to their advantage for the purpose of implying things or claiming someone else meant something because an answer was simple and vague.
So in short, loaded questions need loaded answers, and people who answer them with simple answers are either ignorant on how their answers will be misused or misinterpreted in bad faith, or they are themselves answering in bad faith.
I like to think it’s pretty simple to be against civilian deaths.
Here, let me spell it out for you. People who ask this question are usually asking it with the intention of using it as a gotcha for people against the ocupation of Palestine by saying that said person against Zionist occupation is advocating death towards Israeli citizens, and then saying that they are “antisemitic” because of it.
Now in short it is simple but see, loaded questions cannot be given simple answers because the ambiguity of simple answers to loaded and often misrepresented questions is abused by bad faith actors. I think you know this very well, and the fact you still seek a simple answer that can be misconstrued or used as a gotcha is concerning to say the least.
You can be against more than one thing at once. Being in support of Palestine doesn’t mean all israeli civilians should die.
That is the status quo. What also counts is how stuff as worded. Statements need to be clear that they don’t imply the harm or persecution of innocents.
It’s very peculiar how the group that prides itself on identifying dogwhistles and cryptofascism is seemingly ignorant of antisemitic dogwhistles, despite just ten years ago being overtly aware of these antisemitic dogwhistles.
It’s campism to the extreme