A bit over a month ago, a user posted in [email protected] to propose defederating from maga.place. That post was followed by a discussion in [email protected] a week ago, which seems to have gained some traction. In response, we’re going to hold a vote on the matter. Voting will be open for one week, through Friday, November 7.

The Agora discussion post is here:
https://sh.itjust.works/post/48420886

Only sh.itjust.works accounts created prior to today (October 31) may cast a vote.

Vote by commenting either yes/aye/oui or nay/no/non.

Any further discussion should happen in the Agora post linked above.

Additional Context/Discussions

Similar discussion at lemmy.ca: https://sh.itjust.works/post/46502305

Other fediverse instances are also defederating: https://sh.itjust.works/post/48111431

The instance’s page at Fediseer: https://gui.fediseer.com/instances/detail/maga.place

VOTE RESULT

Results will be listed here after voting is closed.

  • Banana@sh.itjust.works
    62·
    5 days ago

    Part of fighting fascism is not allowing them to congregate in our spaces because they will inevitably turn it into one of theirs. So no.

    • GhostedIC@sh.itjust.works
      26·
      4 days ago

      Ah yes, the only thing that can defeat “fascism”, censorship! And admitting that open discussion would just destroy the community here lmao

      • Banana@sh.itjust.works
        31·
        4 days ago

        It’s the tolerance paradox you’ve fallen for there. You can’t tolerate intolerance because then it multiplies, and you do NOT discuss with fascists. They do not discuss in good faith because their very values are based in bad faith. You won’t get me with that.

        Also censorship? Give me a fuckin break, nobody censors like fascists do.

        • GhostedIC@sh.itjust.works
          23·
          3 days ago

          Oh wow, I’ve been waiting for someone to misuse the paradox of tolerance like this. Most people matured out of it by now.

          But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

          To be absolutely clear, Karl Popper was saying that people who refuse to listen to the other side (that’s you), want them censored so nobody can hear them (that’s you) and, oh let’s say, condone shooting charlie kirk in public while he’s in a peaceful debate (that’s you, I checked) need to be “suppressed by force”.

          And for the record, the white house was running a massive censorship operation where the government demanded over 10 million pieces of content be removed from Facebook in one year, including true statements of fact and protected opinions. This ended with Trump’s inauguration.

          That’s to say nothing of Reddit’s political censorship.

          You say “nobody censors like fascists do” but I think you might be the fascist.

          • Banana@sh.itjust.works
            22·
            3 days ago

            That’s awfully presumptuous of my intentions especially when you have plenty of spaces to be a dick far away from here, you can’t really call being kicked out of a private space for being antisocial censorship just because people won’t listen to you, censorship doesn’t extend to private spaces, because they’re private.

            Also lol lmfao at you sharing Karl Popper, who literally was saying we don’t have to tolerate, and in fact should censor people like you because you won’t debate in good faith. Fuckin idiot arguing with yourself gtf outta here.

            I’ll be blocking you because I really don’t want or need to ‘debate’ you when your biases are clear. I don’t care what kind of rage-bait you cherry pick.