I feel like we need to talk about Lemmy's massive tankie censorship problem. A lot of popular lemmy communities are hosted on lemmy.ml. It's been well known for a while that the admins/mods of that instance have, let's say, rather extremist and onesided political views. In short, they're what's colloquially referred to as tankies. This wouldn't be much of an issue if they didn't regularly abuse their admin/mod status to censor and silence people who dissent with their political beliefs and for example, post things critical of China, Russia, the USSR, socialism, ...
As an example, there was a thread today about the anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre. When I was reading it, there were mostly posts critical of China in the thread and some whataboutist/denialist replies critical of the USA and the west. In terms of votes, the posts critical of China were definitely getting the most support.
I posted a comment in this thread linking to "https://archive.ph/2020.07.12-074312/https://imgur.com/a/AIIbbPs" (WARNING: graphical content), which describes aspects of the atrocities that aren't widely known even in the West, and supporting evidence. My comment was promptly removed for violating the "Be nice and civil" rule. When I looked back at the thread, I noticed that all posts critical of China had been removed while the whataboutist and denialist comments were left in place.
This is what the modlog of the instance looks like:
Definitely a trend there wouldn't you say?
When I called them out on their one sided censorship, with a screenshot of the modlog above, I promptly received a community ban on all communities on lemmy.ml that I had ever participated in.
Proof:
So many of you will now probably think something like: "So what, it's the fediverse, you can use another instance."
The problem with this reasoning is that many of the popular communities are actually on lemmy.ml, and they're not so easy to replace. I mean, in terms of content and engagement lemmy is already a pretty small place as it is. So it's rather pointless sitting for example in /c/[email protected] where there's nobody to discuss anything with.
I'm not sure if there's a solution here, but I'd like to urge people to avoid lemmy.ml hosted communities in favor of communities on more reasonable instances.
I've been banned from .ml for being a 'racist' for being anti-Xi, despite the fact that I am Chinese, and pointed out my ethnicity as such in the discussion. I guess antisemitic Jews aren't the only weird accusation getting thrown about nowadays.
I don't think any of this is even real to them. The same way that a majority of the white-nationalist 4-channers are just roleplaying and losing themselves in the storylines, as a species we tend to do that, we just get lost in a narrative because it explains how we feel.
The tankies are doing the same exact thing. They're not impacting policy, they're not marching for anything, they're not taken seriously and it's just another in-club that has its own language and imagery and secret handshakes and a unifying message to rally behind (America bad!) and instead of turning that criticism into actionable plans for changing representation and making anything better, they put on WW2 Russian Tanker helmets and have erotic fantasies about a communist uprising that will never happen.
Children.
I got a ban for pointing out the nuclear strikes on Japan killed less than the conventional firebombing runs leading up to it, and if nukes wouldn't have been used a shit ton more people would have died.
Like, no opinion on if what was morally right or not, just what the numbers worked out.
It's all trolls over there, when a rational person makes a community, the admins start drama there and troll the mods till they leave or get kicked out for stupid shit.
I just blocked the whole instance. I never see any of their posts now, and as an unintended bonus I don't even get notifications when their users reply to my comments.
Like, it would be best if we defederated from them and that hilariouschaos troll instance.
But I can just block them, works the same.
More people were killed in the firebombing.
The theory that more people would have died of the nukes weren't dropped is FAR from settled fact. The Japanese were already looking to surrender and it's not likely the bomb played a big part in that decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki?wprov=sfla1
Regardless it's nothing to get banned over, that's for sure.
This is a lot of the problem with gen z, especially among the left. Everyone is quick to smash the block button, which in aggregate just makes everything worse for everyone else.
Explain?
When you block someone you cede the conversation to them. When lots of people block someone, fewer people push back against their bullshit. Because the people most able to push back against it no longer see it.
So you make them invisible to yourself, but not to others.
That's an absolutely disgusting thing to say. Japan was already surrendering, they were only nuked as a show of strength.
I'm not sure what you imply when you say that "a shit ton more people would have died", but if you're saying that the US should have napalm bombed an entire surrendering country just to make an example, I don't think it makes your argument valid. It's not ok to do something horrible, just because you could have done something even worse if you had wanted to.
Who told you something that ridiculous?
They weren't already surrendering, ok. I'm not an expert but imo it could be argued that the Soviet Union joining the war (as they were about to) might have given Japanese command an excuse to surrender while saving face, or triggered an internal coup or something. They weren't stupid, surely they could see the writing on the wall.
If you think there was anyway they'd have surrendered without nukes then yes, I will agree that you are "not an expert".
For fucks sake, after the nukes there was still an attempted coup to prevent surrender...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident
People thay think Japan surrendered because of loss of life, have no idea what they're talking about about.
Japan surrendered because they thought America had more nukes, and if they kept fighting then Japan would be left uninhabitable for centuries due to atomic contamination.
The people who tried the coup, did so because they thought America didn't have more nukes.
They weren't, but honor was/is huge in their culture, and Japan was an empire for thousands of years.
They'd have fought to the last Japanese civilian was alive
They surrendered, and I know I'm repeating myself, because they thought their islands would be literally wiped off the face of the planet.
Anything less wouldn't have won the war and cost more lives on both sides.
Even as a trolly problem, it's not a tough call on if nukes saved lives.
If a coup needed to happen to stop surrender...
Sounds like they were planning on surrendering, no?
I don't want to get in the merit of the comment, but unless you see the future, this statement is simply not true. Your argument is simply based on accepting certain assumptions as true.
Coincidentally this argument is routinely used by people supporting american atrocities, who consider nuking hundreds of thousands of people the humanitarian solution to WWII.
To be clear, I don't agree with that line of moderation, I don't agree with most of the views that seem to characterize .ml, but it's a year that people make posts like this one, you can't tell me you don't understand the ban based on the above.
I suggest you learn about history before you form opinions on what happened
History is about what happened. "Otherwise it would" is speculation.
And even after the nuclear bombs, there was an attempted coup to stop surrender.
Prior to the bombs, there was no chance of surrender.
That is history.
And where is the count of deaths in the different timeline?
Look, my point is simple: human history is not deterministic and we simply can't know what happens tomorrow like if we were predicting the laws of phisics. Maybe there were other 100 different course of actions leading to as many outcomes.
You can analyze what happened, but it's foolish to say "this was better because the alternative would have led to". You can only analyze and discuss what happened, otherwise anything can be justified with "it wouldn't have been worse".
"this genocide was good, because without it the oppressed population would have led to civil war and many more deaths".
You think the nuclear bombs were a genocide?
Seriously, who "taught" you this stuff?
I am genuinely curious where people presented all of this stuff you're saying as history.
Like, it's almost like the only thing you know about civilian deaths in WW2 was American dropped nukes.
There's sooooo much that you're missing. But unless you dropped out of school at a very young age, I can't be the first person that tries to explain this to you
So where are your opinions coming from?
Is this a thing where you learned everything you know about a subject from YouTube videos?
If so....
Why?
I just made an example of speculating on future occurrences to justify concrete actions that instead happened. In fact, the entire comment was about the general idea of considering history deterministic, not about the specific atomic bomb event...
Bruh, you need to not speculate on things you have no idea about
But clearly you don't care about what actually happened, so I'll stop trying to explain basic shit to you now.
You need to learn what abstraction is, my friend. I am not speculating. Quite the opposite. I am saying that you like to think the world works according to precise laws that you can use to predict the future. This is why you are arguing in multiple comments that "they would have...", as if people are NPCs with 3 different behaviors and the outcomes are predetermined so it's just a matter of choosing.
The reality is simple: you, me, nobody can know for sure what " would have happened" if history happened differently. This is a methodological issue, not a discussion on the merits of your speculation.
I don't know if nuclear bombs caused less deaths than the millions of other potential courses of actions, and neither do you, neither does anybody else. I don't know if Israel wiping off Gaza from the map potentially saved thousands of lives in future conflicts. You see the problem?
Now, before assuming that everyone else is an idiot and that you are the only smart one in the room, you might want to try a little harder to understand the point of your interlocutor, considering we are also discussing in what (I assume) is your native language but not mine. If you didn't understand so far that my critique is in the method, not in the merits, of your claim, then I agree, there is nothing to talk about.
If anyone would like more context about the kind of think they were posting:
Yep, the horror. I absolutely deserved an instance-wide ban for the terrible things I said.
I do love the amount of facts and proof that is been dug up and displayed in this post, many thanks to all those going to the effort!
And I've been censored (not yet banned, but I guess it won't take long till that as well) on lemmy.world (and beehaw) for spreading "misinformation" about Ukraine, despite being a Ukrainian and actually reading (and sharing) the local news of what's actually happening there, contrary to the government propaganda.
You claim Zelensky is illegitimate and authoritarian for not holding elections in the middle of a fight for the country's survival. The logic there is hilariously bad. Setting aside the absolute waste of resources, the last thing any country needs in such a scenario is for their leaders to start campaigning over who's going to take control. It's not the time and place for it. If you want to blame anybody, blame Russia
Right, so basically it's okay for countries to be authoritarian, it's okay to slaughter thousands of people and making everybody else live in constant fear, as long as the government aligns itself with the west.
Why would I blame Russia? It's not Russia, it's not Putin who is kidnapping people of the streets in Ukraine and sends them to die. It's Zelensky's regime.
Very cool and humanitarian and obviously I don't agree with that. But out of curiosity - can you please explain to me why is North Korea different?
It is also officially still in a state of a war with South Korea. Does it mean Kim Jong Un is suddenly also a hero that leads his country against the enemy? It doesn't matter that people are trapped there, it doesn't matter that people may not support him, all the atrocities committed by him do not matter as well, because they are in a war, am I right?
Because South Korea is not actively trying to wipe out NK from existence, but actually the opposite is trying to reach out to NK and stabilise relations. 'War' is a hilarious way to describe their status. Way to strawman the argument.
Who kills the Ukranians that are being send to die?
Russia.
Now, I answered your question, would you please be so kind to answer mine now, which is also quite simple?
If there are two men, man A is simply operating a meat grinder while man B kidnaps people from the streets (soon he will start breaking into people's homes as well), forcefully pushes them into the meat grinder, and watches to make sure they can't get out of it, he also makes sure nobody leaves the city so that he can continue his game, who do you blame more for deaths of people in the meat grinder?
The man who operates the meat grinder? The man who started the business of shoving people into a grinder??? An everadvancing grinder? Jesus. At least get your metaphor right
Those are two different people though.
No. Russia isnt just hosting a meat grinder that operates on the front, stationary and non threatening. The meat grinder is ever advancing and as we have seen in Bucha, its business is tp shove people in there. Russia is the aghressor after all.
sImPLY OPErATiNg A MeAT GRInDER
A meat grinder needs meat, you dunce. Activating the grinder in this metaphor is invading Ukraine. "Throwing people in the grinder" is sending people to stop the grinder.