FediTips (@feditips@mstdn.social)
mstdn.social
Content warning: Please don't use Lemmy :( Human rights, oppression

Please don’t put any hate comments against the developers of lemmy or against the person who posted this.

I am also unhappy about what the main lemmy instance is doing.

What are your thoughts?

  • QuentinCallaghan@sopuli.xyz
    183·
    3 years ago

    I’ve been struggling the whole day about how to respond to this.

    My first reaction was disgust, as the thing going on with Uyghurs in China pretty much looks like a genocide, regardless of semantics. “If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck”.

    When it comes to discussion about the subject, I however have to agree with @jazzfes@lemmy.ml.

    To be clear: Allowing discussions around whether abuses occur is notably different to letting people get away with advocating for abuses. The latter is what needs strong responses. The former is what requires engagement.

    No promotion of oppression or bigotry has in this case happened. I’d rather allow people have these discussions as long as they can behave like in a furnished space.

    I’m fine with the developers’ political views, as the Lemmy software is more important.

    Of course Lemmy has now a certain kind of PR problem as this FediTips fella is making big accusations and wanting people to stop using Lemmy altogether.

    • poVoq@lemmy.ml
      18·
      3 years ago

      Lemmy always had a PR “problem”, but so far it has probably been a net positive as it kept away some very annoying people and Lemmy the software isn’t quite ready for mainstream adoption anyways (mainly due to lacking moderation options and integration with the “normal” Fediverse).

    • Ferk@lemmy.ml
      7·
      3 years ago

      But it’s not that easy. Having a “discussion around whether abuses occur” implies allowing being apologetic towards those acts which might be abusive.

      I’m sure fascists don’t think of fascism as abusive, even if it is. Would you allow discussing that?

      At some point you need to set a clear dogmatic/axiomatic definition of what’s not allowed (with examples from different geopolitical positions) and don’t allow anyone to put that in doubt, abiding by that definition should be part of the rules.

      Of course this makes it much harder to discuss things openly, but that’s the price to pay if you want to have a rule that claims zero tolerance.

      • AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
        127·
        3 years ago

        It’s ironic that the “OMG CHINA IS GENOCIDING” crowd accuses us of lying and ignoring evidence when we tend to be the only ones providing sources for our claims. It’s evident in this very thread.

        • Ripuli@lemmy.ml
          76·
          3 years ago

          It’s not a good look for admins to get involved in politics this directly, makes the whole place look like a hugbox

    • TeaBeast@lemmy.ml
      811·
      3 years ago

      Let’s not fool ourselves, denying Uyghur abuse puts you in the same territory as holocaust deniers.

      • Domoshomo@lemmy.ml
        123·
        3 years ago

        Would you deny white genocide? You should. The reasoned denial of a supposed genocide is not equivalent to the ideological denial (or fabrication) of the same. Holocaust denial is not the same as scepticism of the genocide which is supposed to be taking place in Xinjiang. To equate any genocide with the Holocaust is an ideological tool used to avoid analysis of the subject.

      • pimento@lemmygrad.ml
        125·
        3 years ago

        Then the United Nations are holocaust deniers. Fact is that no international court or UN organ has even investigated the alleged “genocide”. Innocent until proven guilty.