this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2025
481 points (97.4% liked)

196

4452 readers
1978 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 8 months ago
MODERATORS
 

It often seems like insincere virtue signaling.

all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jonesey71@lemmus.org 5 points 1 day ago

This has gone on too long, I agree. Stand up, flush, move on. This is just like every other turd. Every once in a while you have a turd worth looking at for a minute before you flush, but this isn't that turd.

Liberals side with fascism every time it's honestly just sad a a real mask off moment

[–] RedSeries@lemmy.blahaj.zone 63 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Are they still going on and on about one dead guy? Who was unsurprisingly shot by someone more far-right than he was?

They either really really want this to be the reichtag or they're still trying to distract from like the Epstein files or some crap.

[–] running_ragged@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago

It’s to drum up ‘Antifa is a terrorist organization , and anyone we don’t like is a member’ support. And it’s working.

Like every thing else they do, the truth doesn’t matter.

And about the school shootings that happened that day? Not a single tear.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] RedSeries@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 days ago

fuckin.... felt

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 4 points 1 day ago

They’ll be distracting from the Epstein files for a long damn time. Possibly because I suspect that we’ll never know the truth.

[–] onslaught545@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I don't think there's any credible evidence that's been released suggesting he's far-right. The groyper thing was a misidentification of the markings on the bullet casings.

I don't think there's any doubt he's a right-winger, but him being further right than Kirk is unsubstantiated.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 54 points 2 days ago
[–] florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"News article titled A New Democratic Think Tank Wants to Curb the Influence of Liberal Groups, published September 17, 2025, in The New York Times by Reid J. Epstein. The article explains that the Searchlight Institute, led by Adam Jentleson, aims to persuade Democrats to play down issues like climate change and LGBTQ rights to appeal to more voters. A color photo beneath shows five people standing outdoors: Cam Thompson, Charlotte Swasey, Adam Jentleson (center), Tré Easton, and Danielle Deiseroth."

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 2 days ago (2 children)

“The folks who are most to blame about Trump are the ones who pushed Democrats to take indefensible positions,” Mr. Jentleson said in an interview Tuesday, citing a series of positions Kamala Harris took in 2019 before walking back many of them once she became the Democratic presidential nominee in 2024.

It's almost impressive how exactly wrong he manages to be for money. He's like the Chris Rufo of Neoliberalism 🤬

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

The folks who are most to blame about Trump are the ones who pushed Democrats to take indefensible positions

So the pro-Israel lobby

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Describing equality and science as indefensible positions is the most neoliberal thing I've ever heard in my life

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Particularly after an election in which it was made clear that the party was unwilling to abandon genocide support.

That's what an indefensible position looks like.

Well, how many Nazis like them? None?

See? Indefensible.

[–] RedPandaRaider@feddit.org 31 points 2 days ago

"Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" will never not be correct.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago

The number of liberals engaging in hagiography of a dead nazi is the least surprising thing ever.

[–] Alpha71@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

I just learned that he received a standing ovation in MY Canadian Parliament. JFC...

[–] BadJojo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

So many headlines of celebs doing stuff like this and they all feel forced and fake, or at the very least detached from reality. Are they going to start singing "Imagine" again?

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 15 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Reality is that the assassination is being used to justify oppression and hasn't done anything at all to help causes Kirk opposed. Far less people would be lamenting if this were just a normal death of natural causes (incl. the healthcare system, even) instead of a political assassination.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

the assassination is being used to justify oppression

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org -1 points 1 day ago

protests are clearly not assassinations. Kirk was shot doing a similar kind of political gathering and I wouldn't shoot a Nazi protestor either

[–] BadJojo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 2 days ago (2 children)

If liberals were lamenting that Charlie Kirk was turned into a martyr even though he was one of the biggest pieces of shit on this space rock, I would accept and respect that. Instead they are all "he was a Christian", "he was a family man", "he was a man of faith", "please send love to his family". Meanwhile his widow, who's rich as fuck already, is milking his followers with Go Fund Me campaigns.

I am genuinely disgusted by how everyone, left and right, is s constantly being taken advantage of...but that's for a different post.

To be clear, this is the playbook they’re using

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Anyone being assassinated for political views, no matter how bad said views were, elicits sympathy automatically due to the long-term effects of political assassinations when there isn't an uprising going on. I don't see what's wrong with that, and confirmation bias finding additional "things" to have flimsier sympathies for is a thing. Also, "he was a Christian/man of faith" is something I only hear Christians say.

[–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

With how you put it, it sounds like the problem wasn't Kirk being assassinated. It's that there weren't more politically motivated deaths in a similar time frame, otherwise known as an "uprising" that would have normalized it.

I think you're on to something.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah, I'd support a movement led by someone I agree with that would set back the oppression by more than a few months. ("agree with" would include minimizing innocent casualties and stuff.) Though Kirk would be one of the weirdest targets, so they better have a good explanation for the efficacy.

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@anarchist.nexus 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Or the political killing of someone other than a god damn nazi–like the multiple school shootings that day.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

and hasn’t done anything at all to help causes Kirk opposed

Why the fuck would it? It wasn't intended to in the first place!

I'm starting to feel like I'm taking crazy pills, seeing so many people who should know better act as if the assassination was somehow intended to be for the benefit of the left even though it was a right-wing nutjob who did it.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 1 day ago

if true, doesn't that just prove my point that the assassination is nothing to celebrate?

[–] Zgierwoj@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 2 days ago

Are you telling me that liberal elites alienated from violence are shocked that someone would want a white man dead?

It’s insane. It’s really not that hard to say “no comment”.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 14 points 2 days ago

so why did they all come out of the woodwork
on the day the nazi died

[–] halvar@lemy.lol 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

the number of people who don't care about political assassinations just happening left and right (in both senses) is too damn low

[–] grue@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

political assassinations just happening left and right (in both senses)

They're not, though. They're literally only happening by the right.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 day ago

here's the thing. they're not happening left and right by the left and right. the political right dominates the violence based terrorism and assassination space. to imply otherwise is to run cover for them.

[–] KombatWombat@lemmy.world -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I am sure some of it is virtue signaling, or at least people restraining themselves from saying what they really think to not be cancelled or whatever. Prominent figures do still need to worry about censoring themselves so they maintain their platform, or at the very least that they aren't easily strawmanned by taking them out of context.

But I think most of it is sincere anyway. You can dislike someone, even think the world would be a better place without them in it, and still feel bad about them suffering a tragedy. You probably know someone who is annoying to interact with, but that doesn't mean you want them to be publicly gunned down. Because even if they behave in such a way that befits some sort of karmic retribution, you recognize a punishment can be overly cruel and not justified by the associated "crime".

And honestly, you could even coldheartedly criticise the strategy of it. Killing someone like this makes them a martyr and gives them and their cause a great deal of public sympathy. They are immediately cemented in the public consciousness and forever added as a historical figure instead of simply becoming forgettable when their influence wanes. Before this, me and my friends would probably recognize the name Charlie Kirk but wouldn't know much else about him. But now it's given everything he's said a lot more attention to us and others and made it harder to be able to criticize things he said that really do deserve a lot of criticism.

In the political commentary I've listened to, it's like there's a feeling of winning on a technicality, or by cheating, or something similar. You did not beat him in the marketplace of ideas and have been robbed of the opportunity of ever doing so. If it is indeed a victory, then it is a hollow one.

[–] frostysauce@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can dislike someone, even think the world would be a better place without them in it, and still feel bad about them suffering a tragedy. You probably know someone who is annoying to interact with, but that doesn't mean you want them to be publicly gunned down.

No, no, no. Stop this. He was a horrible person, I'm glad he was gunned down, and he deserved to be gunned down.

[–] KombatWombat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Look, if he did some actually criminal shit that I don't know about, he should have been arrested, tried, and sentenced accordingly. That would have been justice. An individual simply choosing to kill him is murder from a vendetta. No accountability. No argument for others as to why he deserved it. It means he can't be made into an example of a villain that we overcame as a society. He is instead made into a victim, so him and everything associated with him is treated with sympathy it should never have.

But as far as I know, he was hated for spreading ignorant shit ideas. Those can't be defeated with a gun, and that is the real danger he represented. Bad ideas need to be identified as such to establish the person giving them as ignorant and not worth listening to. Gunning him down like this bolsters his arguments instead of dismantling them.

Celebrating the murder legitimizes it as a valid response for saying things that people don't like, and that's a dangerous precedent for anyone trying to change the state of things for the better.