We, the admin team, decry all forms of settler-colonialism, and we recognize that Zionism is a pro-settler-colonialist position.
Therefore we propose that should no longer be accepting of any Zionist accounts on our instances.
Please upvote for agree, downvote for disagree.
Note: we only count votes by instance members of dbzer0 and anarchist.nexus, plus a few vouched-for external users.
Hi mateys, I’ve kept things simple in the above text, for brevity, but in fact it took the admin team quite a while to get to this stage. We have discussed the policy change extensively, and a variety of different perspectives emerged. I will attempt to sum them up below as best I can:
-
The “this isn’t that complicated” school of thought goes something like this: If someone is consistently posting comments that mirror Hasbara talking points (e.g. justifying the genocide in Gaza, consistently painting Palestinians as terrorists and Israel as the victim), then they should be instance banned. It’s just not acceptable for Zionists to be allowed on our instances.
-
The “slippery slope” / “purity test” school of thought is that banning people for having an “unpopular” political opinion would potentially mean banning half the fediverse, if more and more of these policies were enacted over time. To attempt to mitigate this we are keeping the scope of this rule as narrow as possible, and I also don’t think many of our users will be affected. Also, we typically don’t have frequent policy changes, and I have no reason to expect that to change moving forward.
-
Another important discussion point was “how do we decide whether someone is pro-Zionist or not?” We can’t always be 100% sure of someone’s true intentions, we can only go on what they have posted and that is subject to interpretation. I don’t feel there is an easy answer to this one, except to say that we would have to be pretty certain before issuing a perma-ban.
-
The “geopolitics don’t matter” school of thought is that trying to be on the “correct” side of every issue is kind of pointless because nothing that happens in lemmy chat forums will ever make an ounce of difference in the real world. Don’t bother moderating users over political/ideological differences, just let people argue if they want. While I can totally empathize with this sentiment, I can also see the case for taking a clear stance on this topic in accordance with our values and the overwhelming support for the Palestinian cause among our users. Personally, I am advocating in favor of the resolution.
Please add your comments below if you want to provide your own thoughts on the topic, or have any questions.
expiry: 7
I feel like that’s a fair conclusion, we cannot agree on this topic because on a fundamental level there is some information you cannot accept (and that’s ok so long as you recognize it). This is your instance, not mine, and the whole point in my comments was to raise the opposing point for you and the instance admins to see the whole argument and what would be missed by banning alternate opinions.
I appreciate your debate and discussion as well as your time and consideration. If it’s any consolation I don’t agree with what Israel has and is doing, but I am more unsure on how I feel the world should handle the situation. I don’t have the confidence in my own knowledge to be as absolutist as you are.
We’re pretty far past needing a harvard style debate on whether Zionism is criminal. Thats just a fact and you know it. And if you cant admit that zionism has done unspeakable evil, then I dont think you are being honest about why you’re here.
Well, let us know if you feel more sure, should you ever come to grips with the devastation being delivered to the people of Palestine.
You’re certainly right that there is “some information” I cannot accept. Again you make it general, again I maintain it’s specifically “information” coming out of a technologically ~peerless, unapologetically (but certainly deceptively) genocidal state.
There are indeed few things I’m absolutist on, even more crucially toward what other people should be allowed to do. Look at the instance I’m on and it’s very well-stated principles.
This issue is so beyond the pale. The further you go making this argument “but it’s about accepting information and allowing discussion”, the further you dig a hole shaped like “bad faith”. It’s a fuckin genocide. Brutal and despicable beyond all description. With armies of tech propagandizing. The argument that “information” from Israel as a state deserves any benefit of the doubt, out of some principle of fairness, or that “open discussion” is the crucial issue on this ongoing coordinated tragedy - that is absolutism, the ugly kind. Enough.