(not sure if this is the right community, sorry)

Hi, someone posted this on another server. I’d like to request we defederate with rammy.site and exploding-heads.com as well. I scrolled through some of their posts and comments and it’s full of ridiculous anti-left propaganda, for example a post where some liberal Florida family fleeing the state when some child protection laws got passed, implying liberals abuse children and won’t live in a state that doesn’t allow them to. Just take a look for yourself.

" Admins of Lemmy.ml please consider defederating from rammy.site it has been taken over by right wing malicious actors from exploding-heads.com and the admin is nowhere to be found.

It is imperative that you take action as soon as possible the users on rammy are using the site to spread their messages to a further audience, we must nip this in the bud. If you don’t believe me check the instance for yourself, you’ll see it dominated with bigoted right wing posts and spam communities."

Edit: So many commenters think this is about political opinions or disagreement. It’s not. If I said “Mixing bleach and ammonia is good for you” I bet some of you would call that a political disagreement.

  • aes English
    2•1 year ago

    If you believe I used the term incorrectly please say so. Your phrasing comes off as you’re someone who knows a thing, and wants everyone else to know they know.

    • @seitanicEnglish
      6•1 year ago

      I don’t know if you used the term incorrectly or not, because I can’t read your mind. It could either mean “You are naive like the paradox of tolerance warns us about” or “You are naive like the paradox of tolerance is”.

      The paradox is explicated by Karl Popper as

      Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

      When quoting this, people always use the first two sentences, but leave out the third.

      • aes English
        6•1 year ago

        First case; you cannot counter (in practice i.e. having an effect) the intolerant philosophies seen on these instances using rational argument as they do not appeal to rational thought. And because of this, not despite it, public opinion allows inhumane indignities to be acted upon marginalised demographics.