• jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    I think this illustrates the core problem very well. Attacking the character of the poster, and their motivations, rather than the content itself. Is very problematic for open discourse. And that’s probably fine at the comment counter comment level. But when we are talking about banning people the bar should be higher than ad hominem

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      You want to explain to me how historical misinformation is just an ‘ad hominem’?

      Like, at the fucking core, that is objectionable content.

      • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        I don’t particularly care to debate world war II politics, but I think there is enough data there to have a discussion, rather than questioning somebody’s character for even bringing it up. I don’t actually care about community level moderation decisions, I only care about instance level bans.

        Banning somebody from an instance for referring to historical events, seems questionable for a cornerstone Lemmy instance to do. And that is a valid discussion to have here.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact

        
The Soviet Union, which feared Western powers and the possibility of "capitalist encirclements", had little hope either of preventing war and wanted nothing less than an ironclad military alliance with France and Britain[\[50\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#cite_note-FOOTNOTECarley1993324-53) to provide guaranteed support for a two-pronged attack on Germany.[\[51\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#cite_note-FOOTNOTEWatson2000695-54) Stalin's adherence to the collective security line was thus purely conditional.[\[52\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#cite_note-55) ```
        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          3 months ago

          I don’t particularly care to debate world war II politics,

          Yet here you are. Funny way of not particularly caring.

          but I think there is enough data there to have a discussion, rather than questioning somebody’s character for even bringing it up.

          Oh, cool, as long as it’s Just Asking Questions™ it’s okay. Next up, we’ll do “Was Hitler REALLY a BAD guy?” and “Did the Holocaust REALLY kill millions of people?”

          Banning somebody from an instance for referring to historical events, seems questionable for a cornerstone Lemmy instance to do.

          “Referring to historical events”

          By calling the Soviet invasion of Poland ‘bloodless’ and accusing the Poles of being the REAL Nazis, who the Soviets had to invade to defeat fascism?

          Yeah, that’s not ‘referring to historical events’, that’s ‘referring to pure fucking fantasy and passing it off as historical fact’.

          It’s curious how many times I run into defenders of people like this who insist that they have no skin in the game but still bend over backwards to accommodate the most horrendous views. I must just not be enlightened enough to understand.