this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
261 points (82.9% liked)

Anarchism

1401 readers
156 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/8181688

undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

This is literally their instance IMO they don't really owe anyone anything here.

Bad takes are allowed within the privacy of one's own home.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If someone writes as many replies (and as long of replies) as OP, they don't get to pull the "I don't owe you an explanation" card. They've already put in the time; writing 10,000 words and refusing to address hard questions in any of them just means you don't have good answers.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess that is my position

This is their house, you came here, if they don't have any good answers that's fine because they don't owe you any.

I really think it would be more productive to focus your frustrations at the person who made the meme.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If I go visit a friend and they act like an ass, the fact they're acting like an ass doesn't change because we're at their house. If they talk all day, argue their points where convenient, then pull "I don't owe you an explanation" when you try to make that a two-sided conversation, they're just full of shit when they complain about how burdensome that is for them or whatever.

And no one knows who made this meme, but the person posting it and defending it is right here.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well the more original OP of the post would be a better target at least.

And all of what what you said is true, but in that analogy I would say my point you are free to not be this persons friend and not spend time in their house. You don't have to convince them to explain themselves for your decision to not be their friend anymore to be valid.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can walk away, sure, but the point is their excuse of "I don't owe you an explanation" in this context is a dishonest deflection tactic.

If I lie to you, me saying "you're free to talk to someone else" doesn't change the fact that I lied to you.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Again I agree with those, but that being that case doesn't make demanding engagement and such into good behavior. At best, it is unproductive.

[–] Historical_General@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I like the instance despite not being on it and have no particular disagreement with these people, but I was was forced to see a fedpost and their defenders here. This is neither his home nor private.

edit: He's the mod lol.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

I was trying to be poetic about saying "they are the admin and they are being a good sport letting everyone come in this thread and yell at them"

It isn't a home, but it is theirs. They could just be deleting everything and banning everyone.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Look, it's his instance, he can do blood libel if he wants"

I don't give a shit what he can do, the question is what he should do. Spouting heinous lies uncritically is bad in any social setting.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you wanted to convince them of what they should do your methods are strange.

Idk if you think I'm trying to defend their stance or this meme or something, I'm not. I just don't see the point of all this yelling past each other.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am simply saying that this bullshit about "they don't owe you anything" is complete pablum. If you make a claim, especially an accusation of essentially being genocidal, you are thereby inviting counterclaims. Who gives a shit what instance it's on? If he denies the Holocaust to his houseguests, that is not particularly better or worse than denying it while he is someone else's guest because the principle problem is the claim itself.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know what you want me to do about it I guess?

I'm trying to be practical. You want them to engage with counterclaims, and I'm just saying there is no way to make them do that? I agree with your right to make those counterclaims.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're the one who has been wagging your finger about what they do or don't "owe"

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well I mean it literally. You can't sue them for an answer on the internet.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're arguing based on a stance no one took