As more mainstream libs are discovering Lemmy, we’re seeing a pattern of complaints that opinions outside the ones they deem acceptable are allowed on the platform. We’ve even seen instances defederating because their userbase does not wish to be exposed to these views.

Interestingly, these are the same people who level censorship and control of free speech as their main critique of communists. What we’re seeing is that these people absolutely don’t care about free speech. They understand the necessity of censorship and actively advocate censoring opinions that they find dangerous. Yet, when societies based on values different from their own use these same tools they screech about authoritarianism.

Turns out it’s not authoritarianism libs hate, but having their own views censored. What actually offends them about places like China is that it’s their ideology that’s being suppressed there.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s illustrative to see that when push comes to shove anarchists tend to side with the liberals on most issues. I find that in genral anarchism is the left equivalent of libertarianism on the right.

      • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        This isn’t necessarily the case, see Hexbear. I think the most important questions when parsing who we can work with (among anarchists or libertarians, for that matter), are:

        1. Does this person genuinely want to improve the world for other people?
        2. Is this person serious enough about that to address the practical implications of stuff like “what do you do when fascists want to start a newspaper on Day 1 of your leftist utopia?”
        3. Can this person be peeled away from the bipartisan consensus on imperialism?
        4. Does this person have any other reactionary opinions (e.g., bigotry) that they are unable or unwilling to improve on?