Nazi lives DO matter according to the mods of europe@feddit.org

Consider this a notice to avoid feddit.org… I’ve unsubbed and blocked the instance.

... but that looks like a mod/comm ban, not an admin/instance ban?

You're right. I scrolled through the instances top communities. Most seemed political, and are pretty small, so I just assumed it's a propaganda mill. Might not be.
- It's not a propaganda mill, feddit.org is the biggest German instance (since feddit.de essentially shut down)
- It's worth mentioning that mods of a community do not have to come from the instance the community is hosted on. The mod who upset you may not even be associated with the instance.

feddit.org is a German hosted instance that has to abide by the German law. By that law, your comment falls into a grey-zone of legality. As much as I agree with you, they were right in removing your comment, as they are legally obligated to. They could get into trouble if they don't.

To quote the feddit.org sidebar:

Content that is illegal in Germany, Austria or Switzerland will be deleted and can lead to an immediate ban of the account.

Can you quote an article of German law forbidding calling nazis (or any other violent political group) pieces of shit?
It is a genuine question - I am not familiar with German law.
- Not that directly, but saying they have "zero worth" might be against GG Article 1
  Human dignity is inviolable
  Pretty sure dehumanizing can be prosecuted under this, even if its rather tame. Also there have been some laws over the last few years that criminalize violent speech on the internet and that give people the ability to report comments directly to agencies. These might make it quite dangerous for the instance to keep up these comments.
  I assure you, German leftist often say way more intense stuff on a daily basis, but not on publicly hosted servers
- Nothing easier than that: Art 130 StGB
  Anyone who, in a manner likely to disturb the public peace,
  incites hatred against a national, racial, religious or ethnic group, against sections of the population or against an individual because of their membership of a designated group or a section of the population, incites violence or arbitrary measures, or
  attacks the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously denigrating or slandering a designated group, parts of the population or an individual because of their membership of a designated group or part of the population,
  The Post was in A Manner to disturb the public by being a public post. It attacks the human dignity by dehumanising a group based on their world view. Under current German law this is incitement to people.
Ah germs, I understand. Consistently on the wrong side of history. Can't even mildly criticise genociders in that shithole.

This seems like a 50:50 type scenario. I personally wouldn't bother with moderation unless someone complained, but a good faith arguement can be made that you were breaking the rules.

While the current US adminstration is arguably somewhere between proto-fascist and fully fascist (there is lots more room for democratic and human rights backsliding), I can see how dehumanisation can be seen as a legitimate moderation reason for your comments.

They seem to only have a rule against dehumanisation of minorities, where the term is pretty clearly intended to mean minorities generally subject to persecution/bigotry:
4 No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
I feel the ban is a bit over the top, anyway. I get the post being removed for being a bit too aggressive, but to immediately ban over (what I presume) is a first offence... I'd simply give a warning myself.
- Saying "nazi lives don't matter" isn't even "dehumanizing".
  Dehumanization is Trump calling immigrants rapists and criminals, and associating them with insects, rodents, and pests.
  Dehumanization is banning every government department from acknowledging the existence of women, LGBTQ+, minorities, etc, and ordering them to erase any mention of their history.
- Ban is definitely over the top.
  Sometimes less is more with respect to rhetoric (not saying there aren't situations were you have to be clear and uncompromising in your statements).
- Another rule is that all contents have to follow German, Austrian and Switzerland's laws. Under German law the comment that got deleted is incitement of people and therefore it was right to delete it.
No, you need to read about the paradox of tolerance.
You have to shut down the Nazis before they shut you down.
- Agreed. You do have to shut down nazis/tankies etc. Zero tolerance policy even.
  I am just saying look at it from the mods point of view, they do have to act upon their "no dehumanization" rule or they risk that rule not having any meaning.
  Consider a situation where some tankie is ranting about how Trump supporters are capitalist roachs and lack humanity. You don't want that shit in any community.
- Yes, you shut them down. That doesn't require you to dehumanize them. Someone inciting violence against a minority group for example would also be banned I'm sure. The paradox of tolerance is simply solved by limiting the freedom of the intolerant. There are plenty of ways to do that without pretending the offender isn't human. Honestly, resorting to that line of thinking is very much what Nazis do.
- I don't think the paradox of tolerance works here. Popper argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. It doesn't say kill them, it says don't tolerate them. Meaning exclude these topics from public discourse or make basic right non-negotiable and unalterable. One of these basic rights being the right to life. Ironically, by calling into question such a basic right, you are actually the intolerant one Popper means.
  Of course, this only applies as long as we are still in a tolerant society. A better argument at the moment especially in the US would be the right to resist.

Not a power tripping Mod just a huge misunderstanding.

Vance, you wanted to label as Nazi and went off a rant, was only mentioned indirectly, so you probably couldn't mean him.

And instead of talking to the Mods you started this post.

Nazis are shitbags, yes, but like, calm down a bit. Don't stoop down to their level.

that's not even remotely close to their level.
- It isn't a race to the bottom.
  You're not going to win moderate people to your side by labeling them Nazis.
  It's a mistake to find the most extreme opinions in a group and use them to label the entire group. Just because outrage and self-righteousness feels good, doesn't mean it's actually accomplishing anything.
  The kinds of statements, like in the OP, are just a form of public masturbation. You're just yelling into the void for the pleasure and mental rush.
  If your goal is to defeat right-wing nationalists, you need to convince the undecided people and that isn't happening if you're just ranting like a crazy person because your brain is addicted to upvotes and outrage.
and this idiot take is how you end up with a Nazi problem
- You don't prevent a Nazi problem by playing their game of hate. It's a game they will always win. By saying shit like that, all you're doing is emboldening the hardliners and giving them ammunition, while reconfirming those doubting their beliefs.

Hi, I happen to be a moderator on that community. I wouldn't have banned you but I won't put my partners' decision under scrutiny if this is a temporal ban. If this ban is permanent, feel free to DM me, I'd like to review what happened here.

PS. Moderating communities is exhausting! And terribly difficult given my account is not on feddit.org

I'm going to assume this is a language thing. You really do sound like a nazi when saying "i wont put my partner's decision under scrutiny" when the decision is to act like a nazi. You may want to reword or recend that comment.
- And you sound like someone who is very quick to jump to conclusions without the full context.
  They remove all hate speech, including any from actual nazi’s.
  I don’t see how that makes anyone involved a nazi.
- I can see where he was coming
  A three day ban is now apparently Nazi. This word has truly lost all meaning. You are lost ideologically.
- I only meant to say that changing another mod decision would only be taken, after discussion with them, if there's a clear and robust disagreement (a permanent ban). This, to me, is just a lack of agreement (a temporal ban).
- I can see where he was coming
  A three day ban is now apparently Nazi. This word has truly lost all meaning. You are lost ideologically.

Well, yeah. We don’t condone murdering murderers, either.

Depends on the murderer. Dexter has great ratings because people do in fact support murder of people who kill and aren't being held accountable, at least in theory.
- At least in fiction. Big difference.
If Hitler was assassinated before he started the war, millions wouldn't die.
- If Hitler had been assassinated right before the war, it might have been infinitely worse.
  The Nazis weren't predicated solely on Hitler. He actually was meant to be just a speechmaker while the smarter people made all the important decisions, because he was kind of an aggressive moron. Things got out of hand, though, and he was able to take over and to a large extent fuck everything up. A few of the attempts on his life were from other committed Nazis of a pretty high rank. The allies thought about trying to assassinate him, but decided ultimately that it was way better for the war effort if he was in charge.
  I don't think the movement would have petered out without Hitler and constitutional order restored. Not by 1939. They might not have exterminated the Jews quite so completely, but they might have, and they also might have stayed allied with the Soviets and won the war in spades. I think one of the few saving graces about the way it all went down was that Hitler was in charge, fucking everything up.
  The parallels to Trump are uncanny.
- The same if he had been detained.

Classic right wing mindset requiring tolerance of intolerance.

From an anarchist/leftist perspective this is a clear case of PTB. But a milquetoast response to fascism is one of the identifying characteristics of liberalism (unfortunately), so I don't think anyone will be surprised about this type of censorship on a mostly liberal server tbh.

The issue is that by attacking people you are puahing them farther into extremism.
Isolation from friends, family and other social support networks further intensifies social influence within cults. By severing ties with external influences, cults control members’ social interactions and shape their perceptions of reality. This isolation heightens members’ dependence on the cult for social connection and validation, making it difficult for them to seek help or escape from the group’s control.
- Making friends with Nazis won't make them any less fascist. It just serves to normalize fascism.

My grandad who fought in WW2 used to say to me "You don't speak to Nazis. You shoot Nazis".

I may be less radical than that but I would gladly see all nazis and nazi apologists on compulsory re-education courses or in prisons.

Edit: I hope the OP don't mind me using this post in my https://lemmy.world/c/opisafuckingidiot community with the explanation that this time it is a mod who is an idiot: https://lemmy.world/post/25616034

I am in the shoot them camp and got permabanned from reddit because I am vocal about it.

One of the best things that happened in the 20th century was the firm reaffirmation, after the war was over, that Nazi lives do have value.

The allies would have been within every reasonable right to just string up the Nazi leadership like Mussolini, make a new treaty of Versailles, and mime tiny violins any time one of the citizens of Germany raised the alarm that their kids were starving. And, a lot of the people on the ground basically did exactly that. But the word from the top is: They are humans. They have rights.

The ones we think are guilty get lawyers and trials, no matter what we’re pretty sure they did. That’s what humans have to do for each other, in a just world. It doesn’t mean you don’t set things right, but you still give them human value and rights, even the worst, before you put them to death if that’s justice.

The whole roots of the war lay in misery and hate. What are we going to be reaping in 20 years if we just replant it all because it’s “what they deserve?” Let’s put an end to it.

It doesn’t mean we didn’t do terrible things in the war, or kill in self defense. Even kill whole cities in an instant, if you need to. But the killing isn’t the point. It’s just a protection, and it needs to end as soon as you can see a way to end it.

And then, back to human life and value. That is, in fact, what separates us from the Nazis, is that we’re not looking to throw it away.

The whole roots of the war lay in misery and hate. What are we going to be reaping in 20 years if we just replant it all because it’s “what they deserve?” Let’s put an end to it.
I really wanted you to be wrong, but you're not, and that quote is the crux of the matter. I would just add we need to get really aggressive with re-education. I know you mentioned it elsewhere, but we need to be like dogs with t-bones, with it.
- Can you give an example for implementing “aggressive reeducation”?
The Nuremburg Trials still falls within the determination that Nazi lives did not matter. The executions were definitely the point.
The key example for this was Julius Streicher. He didn't plan the Holocaust, implement it, or get involved in any military action of World War 2. He just spread antisemitic and genocidial vitriol through the press.
Nazis and the ideologies they spread are a Crime against Humanity for Incitement of Genocide.
- The Nuremburg Trials still falls within the determination that Nazi lives did not matter. The executions were definitely the point.
  Maybe it’s just a question of semantics. But to get at the point I was trying to make, you can try a thought experiment:
  Imagine someone brings in a big leaking bag of garbage off the street. They haul it into the courtroom, get a lawyer for it, spend months making sure it’s resupplied with water when it stops leaking and gets good housing, repeatedly had experts come in and examine it and look up the records of what type of garbage it had inside it. And then, everything having been satisfied to everyone’s satisfaction, they take it out and toss it in the dump.
  Or, someone puts leaking garbage on a truck, drives it to a place where it’s stored until they can get themselves organized to get rid of it, and then they burn it. It’s given an asset tag, but mostly just so they can make use of a system to count the garbage and make sure there’s nothing of value in any of the bags.
  You get my point, I think. My point is not that you need to be tolerant or soft about people who are going to try to kill you. My point is that they are (depressingly enough) very much human beings, the whole time they’re doing that, and the allies did good by vigorously rejecting the “anyone who wrongs me stops being a person” model.
- Not all Nazis at Nuremberg were condemned to death. The most prominent examples are Rudolf Hess and Albert Speer.
Thank you for saying this. It needs to be said over and over. It's the only way forward.
This is absolute bullshit. What the west did wasn't to generously allow Nazis to reinsert themselves in society after education, but to do a few show trials and allow Nazis to maintain their previous positions. Ex-Nazi party members composed the majority of embassies of Western Germany, operation paperclip brought thousands of Nazis to US soil with immense benefits to produce weapons, a normalization of relations with fascism such as with Fascist Spain ensued, and the US directly sponsored fascist coups such as that of Pinochet in Chile.
- "The West" is a massive mob of people with a lot of variation within them, both in motivation and action.
  Some parts of it did full-throated support for fascism of all varieties, before, during and after the war. Some parts of it were against the Nazis (because, more or less, they were competition), but fully in favor of other fascism like Pinochet. Some parts of it were breaking their backs to try to save as many innocent people from the Nazis as they could, simply because of concern for human rights. Some parts of it continued that same opposition to fascism, even the flavor of it that the State Department likes, in the decades that followed, even including hearings to try to stop the fascism our people were doing in Central America, and trying very hard to send some high-ranking people in the US to prison for their embrace of fascism in Nicaragua. It didn't work (except in the case of Thomas Clines, which I don't consider much of a success), but it wasn't for lack trying. By some people.
  We don't need to have a big argument over which of those is the "real" face of the US. They're all real. The second grouping is probably the dominant grouping as far as representation inside the State Department and actual control of the US's foreign policy, yes, which is a god damned shame. We can agree on that. The vast majority of Nazi war criminals were never punished, just kind of went on about their business.
  For the most part, the people who set up Nuremberg were best buds with the people who helped Pinochet later on, but the sins of the second doesn't completely cancel out the virtues of the first.
But no one is going to invade America and put American authoritarians on trial. What choices are left?
I'm so glad we gave the Germans a pat on the back instead of being mean to them. Who knows, maybe the new Nazi government highly likely to be elected this week will use a less painful gas to kill minorities.

If you don’t believe in human rights for Nazis, you don’t believe in universal human rights.

Right to life is a the most basic one.

Arguments about limiting free speech is on a different level.

Fascists not caring about free speech, but exploiting it in bad faith, is the core of the argument and very valid.

A three day ban is fine for something like this.

For some context, this person is a Zionist, and with the genocide in Palestine, it’s not surprising that they would have nazi sympathies.
- Of course the antisemites show up right away to spread their hate.
  I have protested against and fought Nazis with my own fists since I was 16.
Nazis themselves do not believe in the right to life. They are like cockroaches. They cannot be allowed to spread.
- cockroaches
  You are using literal Nazi rhetoric. You have no moral standing.
- I believe the death penalty is immoral because I don't believe there is such a thing as an act so heinous that it would be moral to kill them after the fact.
  There is room in my moral framework for killing in self defense or defense of others, but I leave that to require some kind of immediacy. And I think enemy combatants in a hot war are fair game, too, but that requires a hot war as a precondition, and I don't think we're there right now.

In germany we say 'heul leise' and i think this is beautiful.

Being real, it looks like your entire point in posting was to have an excuse to continue talking about the subject. Which isn't against the rules of the C/, but I seems kinda weird. There's plenty of places where you can talk about hating nazis and what you wish you could do to them.

Realized I should probably add the post as context In Munich, Vance accuses European politicians of censoring free speech

And this context is FRICKING important.

Well we also have plenty of fascists and are US vasals after all.

Europe is descending into far right fascism again. Even Germany’s highest ranking Green Party member was openly defending the genocide of children in Palestine.

We tried to tell y’all that defending Nazis in Ukraine would spread to accepting them all over the rest of the continent. You cannot allow Nazis to gain a foothold anywhere, or they will spread everywhere.

Not really directly the result of Ukraine, but this was always going to happen. Fascism is capitalism in decay, and why Liberalism is just moderate, polite fascism.

Always keep in mind the human on the other end. The human who has made their whole identity be about dehumanizing other people. Remember, remain respectful and considerate, only they get a pass at ignoring that.

Wait, why are governments suddenly falling to fascism!?!?

.ml 4 the win

Lol "dehumanization?"

You can't dehumanify something that isn't human in the first place and if you think for even one god damn second that Nazis are human, you are fucking stupid.

They are human.
Dehumanizing them is dangerous, because then you think "oh they're not truly human, they're monsters, not like us, right Mike?" And then your buddy Mike who you've known for years turns out to support Nazis. If you think that regular humans can't be Nazis, then you risk not noticing it when the Nazi is standing right there and looks like you or me.

I give Nazis all the rights they want to give to me. And all the lefts too.

If you follow an ideology of intolerance, you are no longer entitled to tolerance from others. I will not engage in discourse with followers of an ideology that would enslave my family and likely deport, imprison or exterminate those who are of color and/or disabled.

That's what it comes down to. You can't have any sort of discussion after that point. The conversation has been reduced to either I stop you or you destroy my life. There's nothing more to be said.

If I'm not human in your eyes, you've already proven your inhumanity to me.

world moment

E oops just noticed that instance is not actually world. My mistake