Over the past months it has become increasingly apparent that the 196 moderation team has a member who does not align with the goals and values of the rest of the team.

196 has a very clear stance on tankies and other authoritarians. No authoritarian apologia of any kind is allowed in our space. It’s not our intent to tell leftists how to be leftist, but we’re not willing to allow somebody we so fundamentally disagree with to moderate our community.

Based on this stance we’ve decided to remove Kittenzrulz from the moderation team.

Kittenzrulz has consistently been opposed to the condemnation of tankies and has made several worrying statements that show that there’s a deep ideological gulf between her and 196.

Furthermore it should be noted that kittenzrulz has not taken part in moderation decisions on lemmy for months, while she is only somewhat active on the matrix (as a mod). This will not be a major change in that sense.

The following is a list of screenshots that should help to showcase what we mean.

waow-based

Collection of based statements

This one is from yesterday

First to be clear we’re not banning her from the lemmy community or the matrix space and she is free to continue to interact with all of us. We still want her around as we think of her as a friend who we care about and want to see happy and healthy, though we understand this decision might cause kittenz some stress.

As of this moment kittenzrulz is no longer a mod of 196. A vote was held and all mods that voted voted in favor of demoderation, with a few mods abstaining (either due to not having an opinion on this or due to being inactive).

And just to make sure everybody is on the same page, this is not a condemnation of kittenz as a person. People can disagree on things and still get along, we’re just not comfortable letting her make decisions on our behalf and want to prevent any further problems we see as a likely outcome.

  • BuhbyeLittleGumshoe [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    I can’t stand libbed out moralist attempts to talk history because it’s just oh saddam-hussein was a bad person oh stalin-comical-spoon was a bad person DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCEPTION OF EVENTS beyond a judgement derived from believe it or not your experiences, material interests, propagandization? Have you seriously investigated this? Why do you have to talk in thought terminating cliches? Good thing the Fourth Reich is not morally compromised nato-cool porky-happy mcmansion technical blob-no-thoughts

    debord-tired ah its not something to pay much mind to they’re dime a dozen

  • princeofsin [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    If “authoritarian” means:

    • Mass incarceration of minorities
    • Concentration camps
    • Political repression of dissent
    • Surveillance state
    • State violence against marginalized people

    Then the United States is authoritarian. Full stop. It has been since its founding. The only difference is that it holds elections between two parties that both agree on empire, and it calls this “democracy.” America is a white supremacist empire that uses elections to legitimize genocide and mass incarceration. Its “democracy” is a branding exercise. Resisting it isn’t authoritarian — the empire itself is the authoritarianism. And if you’re still doing “but China” whataboutism while kids in Gaza are being starved and protesters in the US are getting put on blacklists by their own universities, you’re not serious about liberation. You’re just a lib with a Harry Potter understanding of politics.

      • princeofsin [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        “two things can be bad at once sweaty” locked and loaded to reply to anything like this

        If two things are bad, then moral responsibility demands you oppose the greater harm committed by the more powerful actor. ‘Both sides’ isn’t a position as it’s an abdication dressed up as wisdom. You’re not being nuanced, you’re being complicit with a thesaurus.

        Or

        You’re right. You being a coward and a genocide apologist are two bad things happening at once.

        • commieradcat [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 days ago

          If two things are bad, then moral responsibility demands you oppose the greater harm committed by the more powerful actor. ‘Both sides’ isn’t a position as it’s an abdication dressed up as wisdom. You’re not being nuanced, you’re being complicit with a thesaurus.

          Isn’t that the argument they make for voting for Dems?

          • RiverRock@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            7 days ago

            They forget the lesser harm principle whenever it’s time to root for nonwhite people and conveniently remember it again when it’s time to genocide them

          • princeofsin [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            They are coming from a shitty western liberal framework who would justify it. The democratic Party doesn’t oppose the greater harm as it manages it and i’m being a debate pervert. It’s the entire imperialist apparatus that requires both parties to function as the US is a single-party capitalist state with two right wings. Voting is not going to end the empire.

      • Sleepless One@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 days ago

        One of them did basically that when a Chinese poster called the copypasta spammer out, then used that to downplay the racism of the how the copypasta is used.

  • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    7 days ago

    Regarding some of the Discourse:

    This shouldn’t have been an announcement. Its fine to remove moderators and enforce standards within the team, but you can handle these situations gracefully and quietly. The exact individual makeup of the mod team isn’t relevant to most of 196’s visitors, especially in this case where you claim this won’t be a major change to moderation.

    It seems disingenuous to claim this isn’t a condemnation when you’re dumping screenshots and pinning this post for maximum visibility. I agree with many here that transparency is important, but similar to modlogs, this should be posted somewhere those interested can find it rather than shouted from the rooftops.

    You can and should separate amicability without involving all of us.

    oh i’m actually a fan of giving explanations for mod decisions.

    I hate when people give these glib, quippy “refutations” that completely ignore what the other person said:

    this should be posted somewhere those interested can find it rather than shouted from the rooftops.

    It’s complete bad faith to reply as though the comment was opposing giving an explanation. What it was opposing was completely correct, which is that the pretense of the mods being amicable and magnanimous is completely ridiculous when they have pinned this list of indiscretions by KR, citing a “wide ideological gulf” and basically accusing them of being a red fascist. It’s public shaming while pretending to be the bigger person.

    I have no issue with public shaming (of a sort), but pretending that that isn’t what you are doing is pathetic and cowardly.

  • manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    even if the fucks in the cia nasdap were involved, and to some degree they were, it doesn’t automatically make the entire movement german people fascist

    hehe. I bet these people cry about dresdon, and ask concerned questions about a Islamic migrants.

  • ZeroHora@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    7 days ago

    In a nutshell:

    Based mod says “Left unity”.

    All the liberals respond with: “The only unity we will have is with fascism”

  • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Kittenzrulz’s mistake here is introducing nuance into topics liberals demand absolute black and white positions on. Most of these nuance takes are pretty reasonable if you know the subject matter and the developments since, but liberals neither know the subject matter nor the developments and their entire understand of all of these events boils down to it-is-known

    If you step away from the liberal canonised history in their heads which is based entirely on popular belief rather than facts they immediately freak the fuck out

  • Alaskaball [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    7 days ago

    I think kittenzrulz would be welcomed as a guest here on the other side of the wall as a political defector from the liberal extremists in the 196 regime to the free Federation of the United Left.

  • ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    7 days ago

    I always wonder if any of these people, many who claim to be on the left, have ever actually been to a gathering of a genuine socialist organisation or political party.

    If you show up and start going off about “tankies” and “authoritarians”, you’d be laughed at. Ditto if you claim to support socialism but also hate every socialist state to have ever existed.

    If you think liberal democracy and western hegemony are fine, then so be it. But stop being dishonest about what you really are and what you really believe.

    It’s like they love the aesthetic and rhetoric of socialism but become uncomfortable when it gets too radical. Reeks of pure idralism.

    • Jabril [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Unfortunately this isn’t entirely true. If you go to most DSA chapters you would absolutely be told to avoid tankies and authoritarians by some of their members. Ive seen it first hand, including from chapter leadership

      • ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 days ago

        Are the DSA a genuine socialist organisation though? They don’t strike me as being any more radical than your typical European social democratic party.

        • Jabril [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          Ah yeah well if you put it like that, in the US there is only like one “genuine” socialist organization lol

          I wouldn’t call DSA a genuine socialist org at large but many here would disagree

        • Cowbee [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          7 days ago

          Most charitably I can say that there’s an ideological struggle between reform and revolution, and between staying with the DNC or breaking from it. Those are the two largest conversations in the DSA based on friends that are in it.

    • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 days ago

      Ditto if you claim to support socialism but also hate every socialist state to have ever existed.

      I genuinely regret to inform you that this is a somewhat popular position in America, except that you do like some “socialist states” and they are Nordic social democracies.

  • Chana [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    What’s impressive here is how tame kittenzrulz’ comments are. They sound like someone just dipping their toes into socialism and doing some reading, with plenty of DemSoc and liberal framings and word choices, but because they are rejecting outright anticommunist falsehoods and historical revisionism they are branded “tankie” and censured.

    Authoritarian reactionary tendencies.

  • miz [any, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    7 days ago

    these people base their entire political alignment around opposing what they see as “authoritarian” but can they define it better than “any use of state power I don’t like”?

    • Piltdowntown [they/them, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      7 days ago

      They only know of authority due to its exercise as a boot of capitol. They cannot picture authority ever being wielded on their behalf. Surely the USSR could never be trying to make its citizens’ lives better. Surely China could never be trying to make its citizens’ lives better. They hate the state because they do not know themselves.

      • PorkrollPosadist [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        I don’t even think their thought process is that developed. They don’t recognize the systemic violence of the police state and carceral machine as authoritarian. This is fully abstract to them. When abuses of power are so egregious that they actually make the news, they consider it incidental. As far as Liberals are concerned, the purpose of a system is not what it does, but what it’s charter says. You could have death camps scattered all across the country, but as long as it is done under the aegis of “the department of justice,” they will be more concerned that the image of all these crematoria are undermining the institution’s mission.

        • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          As far as Liberals are concerned, the purpose of a system is not what it does, but what it’s charter says.

          I think this also often isn’t true in the context you’re speaking of. The charter is only authoritative if they already sided with the institution or if the charter says what they view as bad things. If they have decided the organization or country is bad but the charter says what they view as good things, then and only then the charter is a lie.

          Edit: and if they like the institution but the charter says bad things, then it’s just irrelevant, see the US Constitution.

    • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      7 days ago

      Authoritarianism is when the CIA doesn’t approve of it. Liberalism is when the CIA does approve of it. I don’t know what’s so complicated about that

  • BioWarfarePosadist [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Like Kittensrulz isn’t defending any deaths or civilian casualties. It’s a past event, and either there was a truth and reconciliation board or everyone involved is dead or in their last months of life. Just pointing out that the uprising did not automatically mean that the following government would have been any better to it’s people; I think KRz comments would be considered a very neutral tone if this wasn’t one of those things liberals think is black and white.

    But I welcome Kittenrulz to the former mod club. It’s way better for your mental health.