Their Rule 4:
No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don’t question the statehood of Israel.
Europe@feddit.org removed my comment for de-tangling the conflation of antisemitism and anti-zionism. A dangerous conflation that is genuinely antisemitic and fuels antisemitic hate as it conflates the actions of Israel and Zionism to all Jewish people and Judaism.
This prioritization of the German definition, the adopted IHRA definition, is promoting antisemtitism and is diametrically opposed to the ‘No antisemitism’ aspect of the rule. The definition has been condemned by the writer of the definition, a multitude of human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch (HRW), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), B’Tselem, Peace Now, and Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), and over 120 leading scholars of anti-semitism.
Germany Is Trying to Combat Antisemitism. Experts Warn a New Resolution May Do the Opposite
Fifteen Israeli nongovernmental organizations, including the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, B’Tselem and Peace Now, issued an open letter in September stating their concern that the resolution, especially the IHRA definition, could be weaponized to “silence public dissent.”
This could also affect Jewish voices speaking out for Palestinian rights and opposing the occupation, they added. “Paradoxically, the resolution may therefore undermine, not protect, the diversity of Jewish life in Germany,” the letter argued.
Rights groups urge UN not to adopt IHRA anti-Semitism definition
"The IHRA definition has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism, including in the US and Europe,” the letter said.
US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Israeli rights group B’Tselem, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) were among the signatories
The letter is the latest attempt by human rights advocates to urge the UN not to adopt the IHRA definition. In November, more than 120 scholars called on the world body to reject the definition, due to its “divisive and polarising” effect.
128 scholars ask UN not to adopt IHRA definition of anti-Semitism
In a statement published on Thursday, the 128 scholars, who include leading Jewish academics at Israeli, European, United Kingdom and United States universities, said the definition has been “hijacked” to protect the Israeli government from international criticism
Why the man who drafted the IHRA definition condemns its use
The drafter of what later became popularly known as the EUMC or IHRA definition of antisemitism,including its associated examples, was the U.S. attorney Kenneth S. Stern. However, in written evidence submitted to the US Congress last year, Stern charged that his original definition had been used for an entirely different purpose to that for which it had been designed. According to Stern it had originally been designed as a ”working definition” for the purpose of trying to standardise data collection about the incidence of antisemitic hate crime in different countries. It had never been intended that it be used as legal or regulatory device to curb academic or political free speech. Yet that is how it has now come to be used. In the same document Stern specifically condemns as inappropriate the use of the definition for such purposes, mentioning in particular the curbing of free speech in UK universities, and referencing Manchester and Bristol universities as examples. Here is what he writes:
The EUMC “working definition” was recently adopted in the United Kingdom, and applied to campus. An “Israel Apartheid Week” event was cancelled as violating the definition. A Holocaust survivor was required to change the title of a campus talk, and the university [Manchester] mandated it be recorded, after an Israeli diplomat [ambassador Regev] complained that the title violated the definition.[See here]. Perhaps most egregious, an off-campus group citing the definition called on a university to conduct an inquiry of a professor (who received her PhD from Columbia) for antisemitism, based on an article she had written years before. The university [Bristol] then conducted the inquiry. And while it ultimately found no basis to discipline the professor, the exercise itself was chilling and McCarthy-like. [square brackets added – GW]
“Rules are important! I’m a good boy, I follow the rules.” -German soldier in the 1940s
One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
- Martin Luther King Jr. in Birmingham Jail 1963
Germans for ya…
Yeah let’s burden them with faults they now have nothing do do with anymore. Let’s shame them for their past they are in no way partaking in anymore.
It worked in WW1, wanna try again?
A) Germany is specifically and explicitly helping to carry out at least one internationally recognized genocide at this moment
B) everyone is criticizing them for their current actions, that happen to be an even less justifiable repeat of their previous actions.
A) Source for The Hague verdict that calls it an UN recognized genocide? Like the ethnic cleansing in Srebrenica?
B) So a comment about WW2 Germans about “just following orders” followed by “Germans in a nutshell” is all about their current actions?
So Russia invading Ukraine is and systematically erasing Ukraine cultural heritage by reeducation of children kidnapped to Russia is “Russians in a nutshell” because that happens to be an even less justifiable repeat of their previous actions?
Source for The Hague verdict that calls it an UN recognized genocide? Like the ethnic cleansing in Srebrenica?
So you specifically need a court to tell you what is and isn’t a genocide? Too stupid to think for 3 seconds and come to a conclusion on your own?
So a comment about WW2 Germans about “just following orders” followed b
Ah, you are too stupid
There are definitions for genocide, look them up. If you scaled up ie. Srebrenica to the deaths of the israeli-gaza conflict, and you compare the methodology they are planets apart
Wow, I did not expect the need to provide the overwhelming evidence that Israel is doing a genocide in this thread, but here.
Israel's Genocide on Occupied Palestine
- De-Gaza: A Year of Israel’s Genocide and the Collapse of World Order - Euro-Med Monitor Report see Chapter 2 and 3
Our first-hand observations of the medical and humanitarian catastrophe inflicted on Gaza are consistent with the descriptions provided by an increasing number of legal experts and organizations concluding that genocide is taking place in Gaza.
- Doctors Without Borders: Life in the death trap that is Gaza
It examines the killing of civilians, damage to and destruction of civilian infrastructure, forcible displacement, the obstruction or denial of life-saving goods and humanitarian aid, and the restriction of power supplies. It analyses Israel’s intent through this pattern of conduct and statements by Israeli decision-makers. It concludes that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
- Amnesty: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza Revealed Through Evidence and Analysis Video and Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territory: ‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza Report
On 26 January 2024, the ICJ said that it was plausible that Israel had breached the Genocide Convention. As an emergency measure, it ordered Israel ensure that its army refrained from genocidal acts against Palestinians.
The ICJ reported, as part of its decisions in March and May, that the situation in Gaza had deteriorated and that Israel had failed to abide by its order in January.
So, when we look at the actions taken, the dropping of thousands and thousands of bombs in a couple of days, including phosphorus bombs, as we heard, on one of the most densely populated areas around the world, together with these proclamations of intent, this indeed constitutes genocidal killing, which is the first act, according to the convention, of genocide. And Israel, I must say, is also perpetrating act number two and three — that is, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and creating condition designed to bring about the destruction of the group by cutting off water, food, supply of energy, bombing hospitals, ordering the fast evictions of hospitals, which the World Health Organization has declared to be, quote, “a death sentence.” So, we’re seeing the combination of genocidal acts with special intent. This is indeed a textbook case of genocide.
More than 800 scholars of international law and genocide have signed a public statement arguing that the Israeli military may be committing genocidal acts against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as the total siege and relentless airstrikes continue to inflict devastation on the occupied territory.
An independent United Nations expert warned Monday that “Israel’s genocidal violence risks leaking out of Gaza and into the occupied Palestinian territory as a whole” as Western governments, corporations, and other institutions keep up their support for the Israeli military, which stands accused of grave war crimes in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Our documentation encompasses over 500 incitements of violence and genocidal incitement, appearing in the forms of social media posts, television interviews, and official statements from Israeli politicians, army personnel, journalists, and other influential personalities.
I, Lee Mordechai, a historian by profession and an Israeli citizen, bear witness in this document to the situation in Gaza as events are unfolding. The enormous amount of evidence I have seen, much of it referenced later in this document, has been enough for me to believe that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza. I explain why I chose to use the term below. Israel’s campaign is ostensibly its reaction to the Hamas massacre of Oct. 7, 2023, in which war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed within the context of the longstanding conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that can be dated back to 1917 or 1948 (or other dates). In all cases, historical grievances and atrocities do not justify additional atrocities in the present. Therefore, I consider Israel’s response to Hamas’ actions on Oct. 7 utterly disproportionate and criminal.
They removed a comment of mine today because it denied the statehood of Israel. What a joke.
I looked it up. IMHO, I don’t really think you did in the text.
What a punch of genocide apologizing, spineless dorks. 🙄
Well it is one of the rules to not deny Israeli statehood. You shouldn’t post somewhere if you aren’t going to follow the rules.
“I was just following
ordersrules”The rule itself is a joke. Idgaf, I posted anyway. Fuck Israel.
“I oppose genocide. Unless it’s a group I dislike.”
Right, because the extremely unlikely event that Israel is someone dissolved, and the “savages” take their retribution will happen. Or, there is an active genocide being perpetrated right now, that Israel has the power to stop at a moments notice. “Never again”, my ass.
PTB. There is no reason to blindly adopt the IHRA definition.
There is no reason to blindly adopt the IHRA definition
There’s no reason, unless you want your instance to be a safe place for the Jewish people
Say what now? Jewish people are perfectly safe. Apologists and supporters of Israel racism and genocide should expect their abhorrent views to be challenged.
Remember the attempted murders of suspected Palestinians in the US by Zionists?
3 months ago someone stabbed a Spanish Tourist near the Holocaust memorial in Berlin because they thought they ware a Jew.
Attacks on Jewish People, not Zionists are on the rise. And Israel is doing them no favors, not disputing that. But there is actual antisemitism out there, not just the “Challenging Zionists and Genociders” kind, but also the “Death to Jews” kind.
What the fuck are you even talking about? How is idiotic, moronic definition defending genocide actually related to that?
Jewish people are perfectly safe They aren’t. That moronic definition will not help, but pretending like nothing is happening is dumb.
Jewish people are perfectly safe They aren’t.
But they are, sweetie. It is Palestinians who are being butchered daily. Around 100 people every day, murdered by Israeli criminals.
In what way is conflating zionism and judaism leading to “a safe space for the Jewish people”?
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
This is literally part of the IHRA definition, and I’m not the one doing it, but if you’ll look at the comment sections under a lot of Israel-related or Jewish-related news on there, you’ll quickly understand why people on Lemmy don’t want to accept the common definition of antisemitism…
Great. You picked the one reasonable bit from the definition. /s
Too bad the rest of the definition tries to equate judaism and antisemitism again.
if you’ll look at the comment sections under a lot of Israel-related or Jewish-related news on there, you’ll quickly understand why people on Lemmy don’t want to accept the common definition of antisemitism…
Would you mind pointing me to these comments and stating what you mean by “common definition of antisemitism”? I don’t really get it.
Would you mind pointing me to these comments
This is one of the first ones if you search “Jews” and sort by latest
https://lemmy.ml/comment/18546783 https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/14356684 I would search more, but I’m pretty busy right now
what you mean by “common definition of antisemitism”?
By common definition I mean the IHRA definition, it’s the definition used by pretty much all Jewish institutions and in Jewish online spaces, and by some countries (Like Germany)
Sorry, I still don’t see the antisemitism.
The IHRA definition is severely flawed and basically only accepted by Germany. The Jerusalem declaration is the more in line with “common sense”.
Where is antisemitism in the comment you linked?
I’m not seeing it, that person seems to be a Zionist troll and is labeling things which criticize Israel or zionism as a whole to be antisemitic.
Anyone who is against Israeli statehood, reply to this comment so I can block you. (I am no fan of Netanyahu and am against the war, but it seems most of you dont give a shit about it.)
Later. I will give it a couple hours for people who arent OP to reply and then you can have a position on the list.
But yes, I am aware or Betselem and I don’t deny the human rights violations of Israel. It just means that it needs a different government and needs to be held accountable for violations. But that doesn’t mean there should be no Israeli statehood. It just means Palestine needs to be also recognized as a state.
The main issue here is that Israel is an Apartheid Settler Colonialist State. The German law prevents even mentioning the reality of Israel as an Apartheid or as a Settler Colonialist Entity, both of which are critical to the understanding of the current situation and the resolution.
Controversially, the German government officially classifies the following as antisemitic: the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, the accusation that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid against Palestinians, and the depiction of Israel as a colonial or settler-colonial entity. Many of those arrested and cancelled in Germany over allegations of antisemitism have been Jews critical of Israel’s policies.[4]
Due to the Settler Colonialism that have atomized the West Bank into hundreds of isolated Bantustans, it’s already a one-state reality. I’ll quote Avi Schlaim and Ilan Pappe below as they explain the situation quite comprehensivly.
An Apartheid State has no right to exist. This was the same for Apartheid South Africa. The state was abolished and replaced with one that has equal rights. It did not mean the expulsion of all Afrikaners, it meant the creation of a new state with the integration of equal rights and reparations for the oppressed. It’s the same situation with the current state of Israel, and the way forward also requires the right of return for all Palestinians.
Settlements and the One-State Reality
The reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.
This type of settlement, where the native population gets ‘Transferred’ to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice. See: The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948, the Transfer Committee, and the JNF which led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate, before the mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948: Plan Dalet, Declassified Massacres of 1948, and Details of Plan C (May 1946) and Plan D (March 1948) . Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967: Haaretz, Forward; while the peace process was exploited to continue de-facto annexation of the West Bank via Settlements (Oslo Accord Sources: MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ). The settlements are maintained through a violent apartheid that routinely employs violence towards Palestinians and denies human rights like water access, civil rights, etc. This kind of control gives rise to violent resistance to the Apartheid occupation, jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians.
The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.
"Its support – and this includes what is even called the ‘peace camp’ in Israel – for a two-state solution is an idea that says that you do not have to directly control every part of historical Palestine in order to establish your dominance and hegemony between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. So, if you can squeeze the Palestinians into small Bantustans and allow them to have a flag and a semblance of a government, there are quite a few Israelis who do not mind at all, so long as this will be the last and final kind of settlement for the Palestine question. Which means no real political rights for the Palestinians, no right of return for the refugees, and keeping all Palestinians in different parts of historical Palestine, at best as second-rate citizens, at worst, as subjects in an apartheid state.
State violence – official and otherwise – is part and parcel of Israel’s apartheid regime, which aims to create a Jewish-only space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The regime treats land as a resource designed to serve the Jewish public, and accordingly uses it almost exclusively to develop and expand existing Jewish residential communities and to build new ones. At the same time, the regime fragments Palestinian space, dispossesses Palestinians of their land and relegates them to living in small, over-populated enclaves.
The apartheid regime is based on organized, systemic violence against Palestinians, which is carried out by numerous agents: the government, the military, the Civil Administration, the Supreme Court, the Israel Police, the Israel Security Agency, the Israel Prison Service, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and others. Settlers are another item on this list, and the state incorporates their violence into its own official acts of violence. Settler violence sometimes precedes instances of official violence by Israeli authorities, and at other times is incorporated into them. Like state violence, settler violence is organized, institutionalized, well-equipped and implemented in order to achieve a defined strategic goal.
oh please block me
Block them, you antisemite:
Thanks for doing our instance a service 😊 Sorry you got scratched easily. Anyways, it’ll be pretty hard to block an entire instance. I wish you the best in it.
If Lemmy Instance block actually blocked all users of one instance, .ml would be the first to go for me.
I don’t have as many qualms with db0 users, but this is a deffo nope for me.
If Lemmy Instance block actually blocked all users of one instance, .ml would be the first to go for me.
I opened an issue on the lemmy issue tracker, it’ll be in 1.0/1.1. https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/5578
I don’t have as many qualms with db0 users, but this is a deffo nope for me.
You claimed we support Hamas. No, we don’t? No admins support them here (afaik, users too.). But what we hate more, is the IDF. They’re committing an unrestrained genocide, with the OK/backing of other countries. So far, in my couple of comments i’ve been accused twice (by feddit.org users, no less) of supporting Hamas. Really? I didn’t even bring them up before it. Conflating jews with israel/IDF and palestinians with hamas is wrong.
Im all for Israel becoming a city state of Palestine.
We cool?
Why not two state solution or a binational state like Bosnia-Herzegowina?
Because Israel has shown zero ability to manage a humanitarian state so far, even with all their added support from big daddy.
Giving Palestine the same chance before trying a two state solution would only be fair. Now if that doesnt work out, we can go for your idea, but not before Palestine gets the same option as Israel do to shoah or not.
Itll be fun, come on.
I suspect the last sentence violates German law. Equating Israel with Nazi Germany is illegal under German law as it is considered to downplay the Holocaust because the latter has killed several magnitudes more people than Israel. From a quick search, this has been confirmed at least once by a higher regional court where a cartoonist was fined one monthly income.
Advocating for a secular one-state solution has thus far never been considered illegal by any court. The IHRA definition is not German law and will likely never be.
Since the instance is hosted in Germany, comments must abide by German law even if you disagree with said law. The instance admins are personally liable if they do not remove potentially illegal comments so I don’t see why there is an issue.
You can create another Europe community on an instance which isn’t hosted in Germany where such comments are legal.
The law is an ass if you can’t even make a comment to clarify the difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism. Why even host it in a country that has such restrictions?
You can make this statement, only the last sentence in the comment in question is at the very best in a legal gray area.
It is perfectly legal to be opposed to zionism, even in Germany. You may need to adjust your wording, since anti-zionism can and has been considered antisemitic if antisemetic rhetoric is repeated. The statement “All zionists are pigs” would be illegal for example since the Judensau is an antisemitic symbol.
And the servers are hosted where the administrators live (note: they are hosted in Austria, their laws are nearly identical to Germany though). It wouldn’t make much of a difference - German (& Austrian) admins can be prosecuted for any content accessible in Germany (or Austria), regardless of where the content hosted. Besides, it would only take a single court order to identify the admins, see Impressumspflicht.
The statement “All zionists are pigs” would be illegal for example since the Judensau is an antisemitic symbol.
How did you move from comparison of Israeli policies to these of Nazis to pigs?
As a comparison this is extremely daft. There are no antisemitic tropes here - being against Israel commiting genocide is a sign of humanity, not antisemitism.
As a comparison this is extremely daft. There are no antisemitic tropes here - being against Israel commiting genocide is a sign of humanity, not antisemitism.
German politicians and courts disagree, since supporting Israel is withing Germany’s national interest.
This has nothing to do with moral standing. It is merely the simplest way for the german government to disavow the Shoa while still pursuing it’s economical interest.
Supporting genocide is in Germany’s national interest now? 🙄
Notice the
for example
The commenter didn’t say anything about pigs obviously. I was providing an example where antizionism would be considered antisemitism by German courts.
Now read my comment again.
Equating Israel with Nazi Germany is illegal under German law as it is considered to downplay the Holocaust
Debatable. The comment doesn’t claim that the Shoa and Gaza are comparable. Just that sanctions are justified, just like in <insert horriple example>.
Also: apparently, it’s hosted in Austria.
You’re right, though I don’t know whether a court will see it the same. It could maybe be argued there is an implicit connection in the comment.
Also, Austria has similar enough laws. In mid 2024 someone was sentenced to 7 months on probation for equating zionists with nazis:
In that case Austria and Germany would also find Albert Einstein, Hannah Ardent, and many more to be antisemitic for their letter to the NYT
https://archive.org/details/AlbertEinsteinLetterToTheNewYorkTimes.December41948
YDI. Feddit.org is based in Germany and has to adhere to German laws. Some of the stuff you say can land you a fine or in repeat cases even a short jail sentence in Germany.
Accepting the IHRA definition is not law, it’s policy. Die Linke rejects it in favor of the Jerusalem declaration, for instance. Likewise, advocating for a secular one state solution or a two state solution are both perfectly legal. Calling for an end of material support, also legal. The only part that could, by a wide stretch of the imagination, be against German law is listing Nazi Germany in the list of comparisons. But since this is not saying “Israel is exactly like Nazi Germany”, even that would be on very shaky grounds.
Stop pretending this is about German law. This is about political opinions, and these opinions are Zionism
This is about German law though, whether you like it or not.
Which law? Which law applies here? The article you posted is not relevant to the comment at hand
Volksverhetzung
A simple comparison between a state and Nazi Germany does not fall under that. Or else, how many people have been charged for comparing Russia to the Nazis since they invaded Ukraine? This is only applicable if you hold the position that Israel and the Jewish people are synonymous, which is not true, it is anchored nowhere in German law, and is the very point this post addresses: the IHRA working definition is wholly unsuited for political or judicial dealings.
It can though. It’s not like calling Netanyahu or the IDF nazis which probably would be allowed despite being controversial.
Okay, then answer me this: if I say “Russia is acting like Nazi Germany”, is it Volksverhetzung? Would it get removed on feddit.org citing German law?
If not, why? Where in law does Israel get special treatment? Or is it policy after all?
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/urteil-israel-karikatur-nazivergleich-meinungsfreiheit-1.5683671 It is punishable in Germany.
They got charged for showing swastikas outside of what the court deemed educational context. Not relevant, read your own article:
Das Gericht verweist auf das Hakenkreuz, das in der Karikatur verwendet wird. Das Hakenkreuz ist grundsätzlich ein verbotenes Symbol nach Paragraf 86a des Strafgesetzbuchs. Es ist nur legal, dieses Symbol zu zeigen, wenn man damit einen legitimen politischen Zweck verfolgt - zum Beispiel historische Aufklärung, oder etwa Warnung vor Neonazis.
You should read further. That wasn’t the only reason. Another reason was “Verharmlosung des Shoah”
And you should read yet further, the thing they got charged for was the swastika:
Das Argument der Richter lautet, kurz gesagt: Wer eine solche Karikatur postet, der scheint mit den Verbrechen der Nazis eher keine Probleme zu haben. Dann aber darf er nicht ungestraft das Hakenkreuz verwenden.
This court ruling was in Bavaria and quite controversial at the time, btw. But even in it’s most generous reading it does not say what you claim it does.
Oh, well by all means,…
Free Palestine. Free Gaza, then.
Yeah I do support Palestinian statehood, but in a two state solution with the 1949 to 1967 border and no Israeli settlements in Palestine.
Of course you do, sweetheart 🙄
American donkeys think their right of free speech applies throughout the world. Pathetic.
Feddit.org idiot can’t distinguish an argument about what the legal limits on free speech are from an argument about what the moral limits of free speech should be. Demented.
Not an american. Still PTB. Get your head out of your ass.
PS, what the fuck does this have to do with anything, even? Nobody brought up america.
aaaand unfollowed the community europe @ feeditUK here I come!
on that note: Since my account is on the same instance, how do they relate to the community? Like is the reputation of the instance untouched by this or no, if how?
EDIT: DAMN! The uk sub is about the product boycott transition, not about european news.
We need a new instance for that! Guys Europe stands and falls on values. If theres no other eu community or the current one doesnt adapt/make sufficient statements here, that would seriously harm the reputation and take away from one of the biggest current incentives to use lemmy - european exchange
Question, why is your account on our instance when you don’t interact with it to know how this encounter with that communities strict rules relates to the instance as a whole?
Also a bit of a knee jerk reaction, no?
Enlighten me, what is not a knee jetk reaction to a mod defending a nazi-like regime using anti nazi laws as an excuse?
I asked first
