Not really ā€œpowertrippingā€. Just pathetic. Consider this a notice to avoid feddit.orgā€¦ Iā€™ve unsubbed and blocked the instance.

We canā€™t dehumanize fascists for their choice to dehumanize everyone for things outside their control though, because that would be mean, and hurt their sociopath feefees!

Europe stool idly by throughout the 1930ā€™s ā€œtoleratingā€ fascism, and the Naziā€™s killed over 100 million people. Donā€™t make the same mistake as the radical centrists of history. Fascists will not afford you the same tolerance or courtesy.

  • Don Antonio Magino@feddit.nl
    40Ā·
    7 days ago

    They seem to only have a rule against dehumanisation of minorities, where the term is pretty clearly intended to mean minorities generally subject to persecution/bigotry:

    4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.

    I feel the ban is a bit over the top, anyway. I get the post being removed for being a bit too aggressive, but to immediately ban over (what I presume) is a first offenceā€¦ Iā€™d simply give a warning myself.

    • cows_are_underrated@feddit.org
      3Ā·
      5 days ago

      Another rule is that all contents have to follow German, Austrian and Switzerlandā€™s laws. Under German law the comment that got deleted is incitement of people and therefore it was right to delete it.

    • Skiluros@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      223Ā·
      7 days ago

      Ban is definitely over the top.

      Sometimes less is more with respect to rhetoric (not saying there arenā€™t situations were you have to be clear and uncompromising in your statements).

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      2418Ā·
      7 days ago

      Saying ā€œnazi lives donā€™t matterā€ isnā€™t even ā€œdehumanizingā€.

      Dehumanization is Trump calling immigrants rapists and criminals, and associating them with insects, rodents, and pests.

      Dehumanization is banning every government department from acknowledging the existence of women, LGBTQ+, minorities, etc, and ordering them to erase any mention of their history.

      • friendlymessage@feddit.org
        112Ā·
        6 days ago

        Youā€™re not gonna see this as you blocked feddit.org, also geh dahin wo der Pfeffer wƤchst!

        For everyone else:

        Saying ā€œnazi lives donā€™t matterā€ isnā€™t even ā€œdehumanizingā€.

        Doubtful from a legal point of view

        Dehumanization is Trump calling immigrants rapists and criminals, and associating them with insects, rodents, and pests.

        Dehumanization is banning every government department from acknowledging the existence of women, LGBTQ+, minorities, etc, and ordering them to erase any mention of their history.

        Basically everyone on feddit.org agrees with this, so this whole rambling doesnā€™t make any sense. Two things can be true at the same time.

        • FelixCress@lemmy.world
          26Ā·
          6 days ago

          Doubtful from a legal point of view

          Can you quote the section of German law you based this assessment on?

          • needanke@feddit.org
            11Ā·
            6 days ago

            https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__130.html

            (1) Anyone who, in a manner that is likely to disturb the public peace,

            1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious or ethnic group, against sections of the population or against an individual because of his or her membership of the aforementioned group or a section of the population, or incites violence or arbitrary measures, or
            2. attacks the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously denigrating or defaming a designated group, sections of the population or an individual because of their membership of a designated group or a section of the population,

            shall be liable to a custodial sentence of three months to five years.

            And according to https://kujus-strafverteidigung.de/strafrecht/volksverhetzung/ the protected groups include

            Gruppen mit einer bestimmten weltanschaulichen Ɯberzeugung (Groups with a certain view or conviction)

            Which one could concievably put Nazis into (although their views are shit theyā€™re still views)

            https://www.anwalt.org/volksverhetzung/#absatz-1-nr-1-stoerung-des-oeffentlichen-friedens-durch-aufruf-zu-hass-und-gewalt Further provides the following explanation for attacks against human dignity:

            Dem TƤter kommt es aus verwerflichen BeweggrĆ¼nden darauf an, andere Menschen als besonders minderwertig, unwĆ¼rdig und verachtenswert darzustellen. (For reprehensible motives, the perpetrator aims to portray other people as particularly inferior, unworthy and despicable.)

            I would think saying someones live does not matter constitutes them as unworthy (of life).

            • FelixCress@lemmy.world
              47Ā·
              6 days ago

              Thank you, first answer with a merit. Although 1 definitely doesnā€™t apply. 2 you can argue about but I doubt it.

      • Skiluros@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        161Ā·
        7 days ago

        Agreed regarding Trump and dehumanization. I am Ukrainian, so you can imagine what I think of Trump, his goons and even those who support Trump (Americans or otherwise).

        I am almost arguing from a devilā€™s advocate point of view.

        To be honest, I wouldnā€™t be surprised if the mods at a high level support your views (in a different more nuanced phrasing), but you do have to have a modicum of fairness when approaching a rule like ā€œno dehumanizationā€. The style/tone of your comment did conflict with the rules, thatā€™s all I am saying.