this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2026
484 points (96.9% liked)

196

7211 readers
1941 users here now

Community Rules

You must post before you leave

Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).

Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.

Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.

Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".

Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.

Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.

Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Avoid AI generated content.

Avoid misinformation.

Avoid incomprehensible posts.

No threats or personal attacks.

No spam.

Moderator Guidelines

Moderator Guidelines

  • Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
  • Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
  • When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
  • Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
  • Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
  • Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
  • Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
  • Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
  • Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
  • Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
  • Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
  • Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
  • First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
  • Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
  • No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
  • Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
  • Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

rule

the title was a reference to this meme:


(except it said 41kb, I can't find that version for some reason)

EDIT: ~~shoutout to @AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world for making a version of the gif that's actually 41kb~~

EDIT 2: it wasn't loading for some people so I changed it back, womp womp :(

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

For anyone unfamiliar with what they're referencing, it's more commonly called "Reductio ad Hitlerum" (or more generally, "guilt by association") and a good summary is given by wikipedia:

Reductio ad Hitlerum (Latin for 'reduction to Hitler'), also known as the Hitler fallacy or playing the Nazi card,[1][2] is an attempt to invalidate someone else's argument on the basis that the same idea was promoted or practised by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.[3] Arguments may be termed reductio ad Hitlerum if they are fallacious (e.g., arguing that because Hitler abstained from eating meat or opposed smoking, anyone else who does so is a Nazi).

However it's important to make note of the most important consideration when applying this rule:

straightforward arguments critiquing specifically fascist components of Nazism like Führerprinzip are not part of the association fallacy.

In this case, exploiting and amplifying distrust in the government (then the weimar republic) was a core aspect of how the Nazi state rose to power, with particular attention needing to be paid to the idea of 'Dolchstoss im Rücken' ("stab in the back"), a conspiracy theory about the Weimar government which the Nazis "made [...] an integral part of their official history of the 1920s, portraying the Weimar Republic as the work of the "November criminals" who had "stabbed the nation in the back" in order to seize power." If that sounds suspiciously like the GOP messaging about the idea "the election was stolen" or "democrats are criminals", well, that's because there are some extremely relevant parallels between the rise of fascism ~95 years ago and the rise of fascism today.

In terms of either the classic definition, or it's expansion to the MAGA movement, it's fairly clear that this fallacy is not applicable to this conversation.

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Neat. Thanks for the info.

Still a weak argument in context. they laid out the pitfalls with the thinking and this only attacks the inference of the association.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Yeah, there's certainly ways the argument could be improved. I just get particularly irked when I see people throwing logical fallacies out like a rhetorical pokemon, especially when they're misusing them.