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 disagree. There is a difference between general xenophobia and being (quite justifiably) wary of cultures that are a threat to you or others due to identity. The fact is that cultures exist which are highly misogynistic, oppressive towards minorities, supremacist or even racist - and yes, religion is intertwined in culture.
Frankly, it is far too often that behaviours & opinions which would otherwise be considered extreme, unacceptable or threatening are excused as being part of someones' culture.
We must hold everyone to the same standards in these regards. It is important to realize that many core morals which we value (ex. gender equality, freedom of expression, bodily autonomy etc.) are an aspect of culture and not a shared human belief. They must be championed and defended, both nationally and internationally.
People can learn and change, regardless of their origin, and cultures can develop over time. Better make sure it's in the direction of humanism, tolerance and benevolence rather than regression into medieval dogma. (Yes, that includes US style christian resurgence, Islamic religious doctrine and British hooligan culture).
Not really, no. It doesn't matter if you think your fear of another group or culture is justified, it's still a fear and suspicion of an outside group on the basis of identity. Using that fear as a justification to exclude that group from the right of free movement and association is what makes it the basis of genocidal rhetoric.
To use a clear example: early American settlers feared the Natives had a fundamentally incompatible culture to their European one, and accused them of being barbaric. They used that fear as a justification to evict them from their homes, refuse their freedom of movement and inclusion, and to erase their culture and lineage from the continent. They would have come bearing receipts of instances of native americans scalping their relatives or stealing their property - but that wouldn't make that fear a legitimate justification for any of their genocidal actions that followed.
When you live in the core of empire, of course you are going to be afraid of outside groups, because empire has given those groups nothing but reasons to hate it. That doesn't justify apartheid or oppressive governance, and it sure as fuck doesn't justify genocide