anarchiddy

Inshallah, Trump abandons Israel to deal with Iran by themselves because he doesn't want to be blamed for WWIII.

It is the very title of the post in the 2nd link.

The post title says he locked the post, not that he banned anyone.

This one, however, advertises that it is welcoming as it desires to become larger.

It's welcoming, but not to everyone. "No bigotry, hate speech, No zionists, No fascists". Doesn't say it's limited only to activity on their server.

What you are missing is that additional people are being affected, beyond merely the instance admin and the people who wish to block that instance.

Every admin and every instance has their own rules and their own standard for who can participate in their communities. This admin has chosen the proactive route, but those who get locked out have plenty of other places to go, and they can even successfully appeal their ban. That's the benefit of the fediverse, and I think it's perfectly acceptable to preemptively ban people from your community if they display the kind of behavior you find unacceptable. It's your party, and you can uninvite whoever you want.

I don't have any problem with you sharing your take, but I haven't seen anything here that I take issue with. You're free to disagree but I like that server just fine.

But railing against them well before that is warranted.

If Newsome ran on Bernie’s platform it’s probably a landslide.

If Newsom had Sanders' platform, not only would he not be Newsom, he wouldn't be the democratic darling.

AOC is supremely charismatic, and so is Sanders. Democrats keep them on short leashes because they're popular, and because they'd completely ruin the democratic fundraising platform. That's it. That's the whole thing.

Important to remember, too, that a lot of those polls make meaningful assumptions about who is likely to turn out, and Mamdani's strategy is pretty zeroed-in on mobilizing registered democrats who ordinarily would not be likely to vote in a primary race.

Cuomo's campaign is extremely traditional and aiming at traditionally active primary voters, so it would be extremely encouraging to see a major race be won by the radical, non-traditional candidate over the traditional establishment one. It would certainly open up the field for 2028, especially against establishment democrats who's main advantage is their safe coalition numbers.

Banning people for downvoting your posts is a little weird.

Where do you see that he was banning people for downvoting? He locked the post, sure, but things were certainly devolving in that thread. Looks like he just said an unpopular thing and then taunted downvoters for disagreeing.

As in, the instance is small for a reason, due to people avoiding it.

Frankly, I think large instances are a huge problem. I think every instance should be as small as midwest.social.

Yea, go nuts with avoiding it if you're not a fan. I think seahorse would actually appreciate it if people who know they aren't going to like his community not bother him with new registrations.

Like I said, I quite like that admin.

I get why people (especially people who do not share his perspectives) might not appreciate the blunt moderation, but I happen to agree with both of those examples.

The first one was someone abusing the report function against people who were not breaking any server rules. Midwest.social does not have a rule against calls to violence, and I personally do not have a problem with calling for violence against billionares, just like I don't have a problem with calls to violence against nazis or genociders. If it were my server, and I was getting dozens of reports from the same person complaining about people wishing harm to billionares, I would probably ban them, too.

I honestly don't see a problem with the second post, unless you just think he's being an ass.

It’s called pragmatism.

I've always found this word/idea funny because there's a famous American psychologist by the name of William James that coined a branch of philosophy by that name, that was basically intended as a way of rationalizing religious belief by observing how it effected someone's behavior.

People (including James) think that using that word evokes a type of self-evident common sense, when in reality it has always been a word that rationalizes commonly held but indeterminate and often irrational beliefs.

Idk man. You do what's best for your kids, but I think it's irrational to abandon your convictions because you have greater faith in the superficiality of american voters than you do in your own political ideals. Maybe it's true, but it's just as likely that you are making that the case by undercutting your own values in favor of vanity.

I think it's far more likely that democrats are mistaking a lack of charisma for a lack of popular policy. Maybe it isn't because they lack charisma, but because they are in denial about there being something they're leaving unaddressed with their middling technocratic ideas.

I quite like that admin, he has a very 'no bullshit' attitude.

I get why you might be confused though, he tends to issue bans for comments or posts on other instances that he finds or are reported (instance admins get reports from users on their instance regardless of if it originates on a different one). I actually quite appreciated it myself, but I very much share his political perspective so its not for everyone.

Midwest.social is small anyway, so its not a big deal.

MLK wasn't discussing Watts in that quote, he was speaking very broadly about placing emphasis on the conditions that lead to riots instead of the riots themselves, and specifically on how much condemnation to place on them vs the conditions that lead to them.

In yours, he's speaking directly to people who are living in a slum where violent retribution was a commonly understood feeling, and who had every reason to feel justified in lashing out in revenge. He specifically uses Watts as an example of an extreme expression of that revenge.

The LA protestors are not lashing out in revenge - I don't think that quote, in the context in which it was given, applies to the protestors in LA. And I don't think MLK's thoughts on Watts in particular have any applicability to what's happening in LA, but I do think it's worthwhile for Sanders to take a lesson from MLK on where to place his condemnations.

This isn’t about the optics of anything. It’s about how you’re gonna protest.

Except your reasoning for this revolves around optics

Now which do you think will set off more people, watching cops maze and watercannon people sitting and singing kumbayaa, or using those same tactics on a violent group of people tearing up storefronts?

Which do you think will have a larger impact in motivating the general public? Which is easier to modify into whatever the fuck they want, even if there was justification for rioting? Which will play better for the State when ran in news highlights?

I've been saying this whole time that it doesn't matter if you are sitting around singing kumbayaa, the tanks are still gonna roll in and you'll still be lumped together with the other protestors who aren't.

Do you think laws that are against violence against other people are inherently unjust, so one should break them?

No. I'm saying that protests almost always involve breaking the law, and that will be used as justification for police violence. Trump planned to send in the National Guard before anyone had lit a match Being peaceful will not avoid this.

What are you talking about? Remember how you just argued that the protestors don’t actually get to influence how they’re perceived?

The civil rights movement organized sit ins and nonviolent demonstrations knowing full well that they'd be subject to assault and arrest. Them doing those things knowing what it meant made their point for them. You asked "why give them a reason to punish you?", and this is why.

Then why the fuck would you choose to do violence on people and make it easier for them to enact their bullshit on you, when you can try non-violent protests to begin with?

I've repeatedly said I don't advocate for violence. But as with many of the protests in MLK's time, well organized protests sometimes devolved into outright conflict. That doesn't invalidate the nonviolent parts of that protest.

Throwing stones in windows makes you a worse person, not a better one

Lmao, now who is the one using definitive language? Why does that window have any moral significance? Better send in the national guard to protect that poor window.

Ah yes, “don’t do anything because you can’t do anything since there’s nothing to be done it’s all been done already by the giant absolute hegemony who’s absolute and who can’t be influenced in any way just give up”

Jesus christ you're dense. I'm advocating against complacency you dumbass.

No-one has “chastised” anyone. I’m just schooling you.

Nah, that's what you think you're doing, but you're coming off as a nag.

Uhhh, yes, he did say that.... While addressing black americans living in the slums of Chicago, pleading with them not to "strike out with revenge against white people for the many wrongs perpetrated against you and yours".

I don't really think there's any comparison between the Watts riots and the nature of the LA protests, not even close.