Add a clause stating unambiguously that this does not discriminate against people with the Jewish ethnicity or against followers of Judaism. Just the specific policy of Zionism is affected.

Palestinian here, just thanking you for trying to do what you can. <3

Zionism is so innately wrong (and has been for 80 years). Anyone still supporting it up to now is too far gone to be convinced by reading comments by some people online.

I AM NOT A DIV0 USER. DO NOT COUNT MY COMMENT AS A VOTE

Acknowledged governance topic opened by https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/flatworm7591

This is a simple majority vote. The final tally is as follows:

• For: (5), (4), (1), (1), (2), (2)
• Against:
• Local Community: +2.6
• Outsider sentiment: Supportive
• Total: +14.6
• Percentage: 85.00%

This vote has concluded on 2026-01-02 00:56:51 UTC

Reminder that this is a pilot process and results of voting are not set in stone.

I like it. I think it does really limit the scope and maintains a clear focus.

It avoids the religious BS - there are plenty of Zionists who aren't Jewish and plenty of Jews who aren't Zionists.

If you're a Zionist, then you don't beling here; it's the same with Nazis, white supremacists, et aliīs.

Edit: removed an incomplete sentence.

Unbelievably based. Zionists, like Nazis, shouldn't be platformed.

I will say: on the topic of banning Zionists, I think it would be helpful if someone from db0 or maybe a bot would reply to the comment that caused the ban with the Wikipedia entries for the Nakba, pogroms, and just the entire history of Palestine's enslavement to Israel. Kinda like how YouTube links the Climate Change Wikipedia entry for videos that deal with that topic, or like Twitter community notes.

Free Palestine

Hey, the drones were circling over my fucking Christmas lunch this week. We were cranking up the Bublé to cover the constant buzzing, and the bad/worst part is that the kids seemed used to the sound. The only reason those things were in the air over an area with no militia activity is psychological warfare basically. This was a good 80+ km from the border. People in Santa hats were sticking their heads out of the window and looking up. I struggle to get across how normal we are while discussing what we’re dealing with, and I figure mentioning how it’s affected me filling myself with wine and carving a comically sized bird could help get that across to people who also do this every year, or to who the idea is less foreign than the idea of being constantly surveilled by a hostile expansionist entity. I’m not trying to use my sect to say I’m special and don’t deserve this, I’m just trying to see if it can help bridge a gap to discuss something difficult, to be clear.

That said, my opinion might still come off as a bit too lenient to some of you and I think I should write it out. But I am from and live in Lebanon, and I am directly affected by these crimes.

I’ve got a lot of users (I think literally every single one on German instances lmfao) tagged in my client as “Zionist”. I think most of them just pop into a few threads naturally and make a few reality-denying comments from force of habit. I see them in other places and they fit the typical description of internet dude with opinions on Rust and Linux making interesting comments about random stuff. They’re mostly well-behaved outside of beliefs that are upstream of me being chucked into a concentration camp so the US military’s contractors can make my home a parking lot at an exorbitant cost. When I catch them in a thread about solar panels or something, I’ll even find them making comments that I want to read. Normal people with good insight.

The average person in the West has been fed such a blatantly false narrative that I find myself not blaming a few of the milder opinions. It’s on par for me with progressives talking up and down the potential greatness of the American experiment. I think Zionism is one thing that people can learn about and understand and clearly see that the status quo is not normal or natural or inevitable or even self-sustaining.

This might all be downstream of me moderating the way I have tended to handle this stuff on Reddit, my old online home which I’ve spent well over a decade.

Therefore we propose that should no longer be accepting of any Zionist accounts on our instances.

My opinion is a two sided thing because I don’t know if this means blocking users from other instances from federating, blocking them from posting or voting on our instance’s posts and comments, or blocking them from signing up.

I think blocking them from signup is very reasonable. Probably morally necessary.

I think blocking them as external users, regardless of the extent of it, might be heavy handed if it’s a one-off comment by a normal human being, often German, who has been propagandized since birth that Jews will all immediately die if Arabs aren’t treated like cattle. I think these people can learn. OTOH there are what seems like dedicated Hasbara accounts that have an RSS feed of every post with “Israel” or Palestine and have to respond to every single one with a comment that would immediately get you banned from literally any webpage with a text box if you swapped the words Jewish and Muslim. If we can block those outright nothing will be lost.

What I propose is a three/five strikes system for external users with a relatively gentle warning message with some good links like someone already proposed here. Probably a little thing in German to get the attention of those with Nazi baggage who are completely delusional and intentionally ignoring reality.

Personally if I was the one writing it I’d also include that, as a Westerner, believing that Jewish people may inherently leave the West for a colonial frontier far away from you is literally anti-Semitism if you think about it for 20 seconds. Nothing says ancestral homeland like having to rename towns and treat the local population like inconveniently located bags of blood.

I’m also in favor of extending the window since a lot of people are not going to be online much this time of year. I hope, at least. For their own sake.

Happy New Year everyone; I hope Natenyahu lets me and all of us see the untold horrors that await us in 2026.

Zionism is giving yourself permission to kill/oppress people who don’t have the same religious beliefs that you do. That’s bullshit.

Don't see the need to limit the voting to two days, especially during holidays when people are not as online.

It's absolutely worth running the experiment, if nothing else.

I would caution against banning accounts for having a particular stance, as that could be a slippery slope.

Forums have a decades-long running history of banning content, possibly for that reason. Having instance rules that forbid pro-zionist content, propaganda, or news with a zionist spin, makes a lot more sense IMO. From there, it's easy to ban accounts for repeated rules violations, which may be more palatable for both users to report and admins to enforce.

I don't want to share any space, physical or otherwise, with Zionists or their apologists. They add nothing and deserve nothing but the worst.

Kick them the fuck out, thank you.

I want to focus on the structure of the proposal rather than on defending Israeli state policy, which I oppose in many respects.

As written, the proposal does not clearly define Zionism so much as treat a particular interpretation of it as self-evident, namely that Zionism is inherently a form of settler colonialism. That is a position many people hold, but it is also a contested one, and the policy depends on that premise without unpacking it.

If the core concern is behavior such as genocide denial, dehumanization of Palestinians, or the repetition of propaganda talking points, those are concrete harms and seem like appropriate moderation targets on their own. Framing the rule around an ideological label instead of specific conduct risks conflating belief, state policy, and online behavior, which are not always the same thing even when they overlap.

I also share some of the concern about how “pro-Zionist” would be determined in practice. When enforcement depends on interpreting intent or identity rather than observable actions, it increases the risk of inconsistency and misclassification, even with good faith moderation.

I am not arguing against taking a clear moral stance in support of Palestinians. I am suggesting that the policy would be stronger, clearer, and easier to defend if it focused explicitly on the behaviors and arguments that cause harm, rather than relying on a broad and disputed definition of Zionism to do that work.

I'm all for it. Accounts that are actively posting Zionist views are already breaking rule #4 anyway https://wiki.dbzer0.com/...

That said I can't tell how much of an issue this has been on the dbzer0 instance up to now.. but I wouldn't rule out Lemmy getting hit with pro-zionist bot accounts now or in the future.

Question from the peanut gallery: 

Can you clearly define the term "Zionist" in this context? Unlike "Nazi", there is no specific affiliation one can point too. 

Would the comment "Israel as a state should not be dismantled, but reformed" be considered Zionism because it does not support the abolition of the state of Israel? 

What about a comment along the lines of "I think you can't tell Jews they're not allowed to have their own state until you are ready to enforce the same stance on Muslims with countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc"

These types of comments support the existence of the state of Israel without directly encouraging harm. And the dictionary definition of Zionism is simply support for the establishment of a Jewish state in the land of Israel

Ban them all.

The “geopolitics don’t matter” school of thought is that trying to be on the “correct” side of every issue is kind of pointless because nothing that happens in lemmy chat forums will ever make an ounce of difference in the real world. Don’t bother moderating users over political/ideological differences, just let people argue if they want. While I can totally empathize with this sentiment, I can also see the case for taking a clear stance on this topic in accordance with our values and the overwhelming support for the Palestinian cause among our users. Personally, I am advocating in favor of the resolution.

I feel the biggest argument against this take is simply that it's unaccommodating for those who are in the groups being victimized. By allowing that to exist on a platform you are creating an unsafe space for magins.

Already reported for antisemitism, can't make this shit up lol

Edit: and now racism. The brainworms are activating.

Having a definition of Zionist would probably help?

I think Israel is committing war crimes in Palestine, Netenyahu should be tried by the ICC, and that what is happening in Palestine at present is in fact genocide.

But also, I think Israel should contiue to exist, and should - given the crimes committed against their citizens by Hamas - be entitled to demand that Hamas play no part in governance of a future Palestinian state.

Uncertain whether that counts as a zionist position, or not.

Not here to vote, but I hope more instances and websites follow suit.

I've always kinda felt silence is complicity. Seconded.

I support banning Zionists.

Zionists. Nazis. Corporationists. Accelerationists.

All are the same shit, and for them, you have my axe, and my willingness to practice axe combat at their necks.

Hopefully congratulations on taking a clear stance and on willing to at least acknowledge that in case of deep questioning one can safely fall back to Rule #0 of the internet ("we'll know it when we see it").

I support:

• banning Zionist DB0 accounts
• banning Zionist users being a nuisance here
• wide admin & mod discretion on what counts as a violation
• clearly disambiguating Zionism from Judaism
• transparency about such bans (maybe even a wall of shame with all known info about each banned acct, were it low effort to implement)

I do not support:

• excessive hand-wringing over potential collateral damage (we do not need to platform ideas that "walk and quack like a duck" - the entire rest of the Internet and meatspace already provide such)
• burdening admin & mod team with significant new ongoing effort
• shaping what DB0 users see and interact with more broadly (e.g. defederation, other decisions based on activity on other instances, etc.)

(Any of that is subject to change over time of course and is only valid for present conditions re: instance leadership quality, communication, etc.)

Zionists = nazis.

And I damn well don't want to become a Zionist bar to abuse the metaphor.

i tell openly zionist people (in the meat space) to shut the fuck up. people posting zionist crap online like to think they are wearing some kind of mask or shield of anonymity, but that just means to me they need to be told to shut the fuck up HARDER.

ban em, boil em.

Generally support this rule, but I'm a bit wary as a Jew who's been accused of being zionist (I'm not) solely for reminding people that 'globalize the intifada' means calling for a global genocide against Jews and shouldn't be used in support of Palestinians (I was misinformed about the meaning of intifada). A lot of people, especially on the internet, don't seem to understand that not all Jews support zionism/the Israeli government. As long as there's a reasonable attempt to ensure that we're not just promoting anti-semitism (not to be confused with calling out zionist propaganda), I'm for this rule in the same way I support a rule blocking any sort of bigotry.

fuck zionists, fuck israel free palestine

Not a part of the instance, but all the above are coherent arguments.

Summing it up in my own words: Zionists advocate genocide. Genocide is bad. Therefore, Zionists shouldn't be tolerated. It's a pretty clear line.

Couldn't agree more, fascists deserve no quarter. Why should we accept and tolerate them here.

And to all the people here whining about "freeze peach" what fuck are you doing on an anarchist leftist Lemmy instance? You do realize that hateful and dangerous speech is one of the things we fight against right? Tolerating it goes against what we stand for.

I think a big part of it is acceptance criteria, and a preference leaning way more towards preventing a permanent ban if there's a reasonable doubt. I think transparent moderation in this type of thing is good in general limiting harmful misinformation, and vote aye.

Devil's advocate: allowing Zionist voices here, also allows members to argue against the points they're making. Better that someone see their talking points discredited in the replies here, than see the exact same talking points go uncontested on reddit, traditional media, etc.

The again, I'm against platforming fascists because they rarely argue in good faith. I am very careful to use the term, but plenty of zionists are actual fascists (especially the terminally online ones you're likely to encounter), so there's a good argument to ban for this reason.

Ultimately I don't care. The whole debate has become so toxic, I'd rather poke myself in the eye with a dried cat turd. Perhaps banning will make things more pleasant.

The Paradox of Tolerance says if you tolerate the intolerant, then you yourself become intolerant by defacto excluding those that the other do not tolerate.

It's like the old saying, if you are in a group with 9 Nazis, that's a group with 10 Nazis. Same with Zionists

Hard agree on this, let Nazis into your bar and it becomes a Nazi bar.

Zionist are just Nazis in a different uniform.

How is zionist content even compatible with the golden rules of our instance? To be clear, I'm not against adding it explicitly to the list in rule 4, as it makes for a stronger stance, but I'm surprised this is up for debate.

I'm an outsider to this instance, so my vote doesn't count.

I'm fine with banning Zionist content and users. I'm starting to see them regularly on Bluesky; they make inflammatory claims, but don't back anything up, and immediately resort to ad hominem when challenged. Even if you thought that some of the claims they made might have a degree of validity, they're still disruptive assholes. So far I haven't run across any that are acting in good faith; the accounts I've encountered sound like Israeli psy-ops.

Ban the motherfuckers, I'm tired of seeing Zios post their apologia and propaganda all over the internet anyways. People hand wringing about it in the comments need to shut the fuck up and read the god damn code of conduct.

One thing I'll say is that this'll probably put more load on the admins, so I hope y'all have factored that in. It'll be well worth the effort in my opinion, both to protect our m@teys (did that ever take off?) at large as well as our Muslim, Arab, and Levantine friends.

Deeply mixed. Pileons online happen for stupid reasons, tone and nuance is hard to convey, purity tests are common, and education is often sidelined in favour of berating.

Otoh lemmy is kinda dogshit and riddled with fucking freaks repeating straight up genocide denial. Opposing state backed mass murder is like a baseline requirement for admission into human civilisation so...

Wonderful move, if a bit overdue in terms of formality. The de facto moderation stance was already cleaning up Zionazi content; so yeah, in massive favour :)

100% - no place for zionism on our ship!

sorry. peanut gallery here but im curious what spurred it. Im not sure I have encountered anyone with a pro zionist viewpoint on the fediverse. The closest I have seen to pro israel is more im staying out of it either because of the way the whole area is or the ive got problems of my won in my own country and if we fix them then can worry internationally. I will admit I don't click on posts that seem rediculous by the title and I think I have seen some "news" posts were its like. yeah. right.

Yeah let's do this

Haven't seen much hasbara activity here... but it's never too early to ban the fuckers.

edit: Ooops... looks like I spoke too soon.

IMO this needs to be done.

/0 and the nexus are politically active instances, so there are grounds to decide which political views should be allowed in them. And geopolitics do matter on the internet; when two people interact online they change worldviews, and worldviews dictate if someone will fight or support their government's external policies.

Slippery slopes are a concern, but as long as you stick to why those rules are in place, it should be fine. (Basically: you don't want people here who support genocide, ethnonationalism, and discrimination against a whole group of people.)

"Intentions" and beliefs are a red herring. Ultimately, neither thing matters; what matters is what someone does and says. If someone consistently voices Zionism they should get the chop, no matter if they say "trust me, I'm no Zionist".

So I think the matter here is actually the finer details — to ensure the anti-Zionism policy is applied in a transparent and fair way.

Are we talking about banning them from posting/commenting on dbzer0 or banning them so no one on dbzer0 can see their posts/comments on any instances? If it's the former I'm for it, if it's the latter I'm against it.

I don't like seeing fuckers like that go unchallenged. If everyone willing to debunk their bullshit is on an instance that bans them and can't see what they write they'll always get the last word, influencing people on other instances.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding the proposal, I'm still not 100% sure exactly what an instance ban does.

To be honest, I suspect most Zionists are just bots anyway, and I barely ever see comments like that to begin with, so I don't really see any negatives of a policy like this. I'll admit to not being as frequently online the last couple weeks so maybe I'm just not paying enough attention, but yeah I think it's probably good to at least have that all in writing as a rule we can point towards.

I like your instance more and more

Loving y'all's instance more and more by the day.

Crap, I voted twice. Didn't realize nexus counted (because I apparently skipped that part the first time I read it) and switched to my db0 to vote.

Which is how I got the reminder, again, that I forgot about the afaq read (damnit self).

Brb fixing stupid/bad reading comprehension.

I'm a tiny bit worried that "zionist" might change over time to "not sufficiently anti-zionist", but... Maybe not, maybe I'm just paranoid.

I'm 💯 for this.

Now I'm going to play Devil's advocate for a second here. Are we planning to ban other settler colonialist and or imperialist based accounts?

Maybe with a warning before banning them because you can't decide what someone's intentions are, but things like dehumanization, justifying genocide, hate speech, intimidation, and actively spreading misinformation, those are areas where you can create relatively clear and objective moderation rules. I'm deffo for that, let's keep this platform smart and fair

Was there a specific incident(s) that led to this course of action?

It looks like the text of your fourth bullet point got cut off.

Votes at 420 upvotes. Niceeeeee

I’m all for it. We don’t need them or their negativity in our life as there is enough bs to deal with.

Agree. Now give me a pirate themed picture please.

Ban them.

They try to portray everyone who opposes Zionism as an antisemitic.

A post like this is the rare time I want to award a post with more than an upvote

Agree!

Hello! I have a question regarding Zionism.

I've successfully avoided the topic so far, and my opinion is, very boiled down, that both Israel and Palestine have a right to exist, as their own distinct people and states.

Does that make me a Zionist? Would I be banned under this new policy? I'm genuinely not sure, as I've not researched into this topic at all.

how do we decide whether someone is pro-Zionist or not

Pretty easy. If they support the existence of Israel they are a Zionist.

Hell yeah

Just take the easy route and ban assholes...

I’m in agreement here and hopefully, I don’t completely miss the point, but does it matter what *-ism it is?

_________ people better than ________ people.

We’re entitled to / owed …….

There’s a more principle here that is what I believe to be more fundamentally identifying the issue. Somewhat of a Kant, “act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will it to be universal law” but without the selection bias.

Easy agree.

Not an instance member but seems very solid so long as there is a narrow definition for "Zionist".

Every time I go take a dump, I don't think of genocide in Palestine. Does that make me a Zionist? Every time I vote in a local election, I don't look at the perspective that person has had related to Israel. Does that make me a genocide sympathizer and a Zionist? I think the answers to these questions is no.

As long as "Palestinians don't deserve to exist, this all belongs to Israel" is Zionist and "this is horrible stuff AND ALSO (geo-) politics has more than one moving part" is not bannable. I think you've got yourself a winner.

Edit: I would be supportive of restrictions for both Zionist accounts and also accounts who can't even handle discussion and downvote this comment. I don't personally want to interact with caricature accounts of any kind, but it's your instance.

I think actions like this, unfortunately, are a necessary evil. It is too easy for moneyed interests to astroturf in a bid to alter public opinion and the us state dept, the billionaire class, and other various actors have very deep pockets. Whether the users in question are themselves the bad actors or just victims of these campaigns, who knows, but if unchallenged it will just metastasize and the internet becomes just like twitter and reddit.

I doubt there is a perfect solution to combat this - but the solution proposed here seems well considered and reasonable to me.

Agree 💯

Can you explain more about "vouched-for external users?"

I guess I'm for it. I don't have particularly strong feelings about it. I think it's important for people to strongly oppose these ideas when they crop up. But is it better for these to be visibly refuted? Or to be quietly removed? Can't say I know what's better. Banning them is fine with me.

agree

this isn’t that complicated

What is a "Zionist" account? How can you tell?

Are the israelibots really on Lemmy? I haven't seen much if any pro-israel commenting let alone posting.

Fuck yeah. Im .world but it was the first i signed up with. Blame me for poor decisions but it is what it is.

Dead set against.

To expand on that statement, I wholly agree that certain points of view have no place here or anywhere else for that matter. What I am opposed to is codifying what seems to me to be a weak definition of a term. That is a recipe for creating an oppressive tool that can be used to crush discourse.

Do we not already have ample policy in place to deal with the offensive parties without the need for further rules that are primed for misuse?

Additionally, your opening sentences read as very hierarchical and your initial decision to set a short expiry comes across as an attempt to sneak in a change under the radar.

I personally feel that you should take at least a short break as an admin of the instance.

I support this because Zionist supremacist hate is incompatible with democracy, and its rabid belief motivates Zionist first rule over the US, and by chain rule, entirety of west. Because it is more establishment normalized/supported than KKK/nazi supremacism makes it even more special than those ideologies in incompatibility with democracy.

Also you should put "globalize the intifada" as a site tag after this passes.

The beauty of federation is that we can try this approach. Unlike centralised platforms, banning someone doesn't ban them from the feddiverse. They can just boot up an account on a pro genocide instance and see how that goes.

If each instance had a strictly enforced code of conduct they would each develop a distinct culture and federation becomes a lot more interesting.

There is probably a better way to avoid interacting with Zionists than banning any account potentially associated with Zionism. I personally oppose Zionism, so this does not affect me yet, but it could easily turn into a slippery slope. If someone does not oppose Zionism in the “correct” way, perhaps in an anti-hierarchy, anarchist, left-libertarian fashion, they could end up being instantly banned.

Policies like this risk turning the platform into yet another echo chamber, similar to Gettr or Bluesky. I honestly do not think there is any need to ban Zionists, since their ideas are easy to refute in the marketplace of ideas. That said, this may simply reflect my own (maybe) culturally liberal outlook, which does not align with this site’s apparent bias.

Look, I know this is not her number 1 priority, or 100th, but goddamn, that haircut is not doing that girl any favors.

How are you defining Zionism?

I am a Zionist based on a literal definition. In a better society, people could go anywhere they wanted, use electronic currency and have UBI, and do what they want.

So I'm a gay person. If there were no borders, I would be concerned that religious conservatives (of any faith) would move to my area and have tons of conservative kids, and then it would be harder for me to be gay without being killed and to marry. 100 years from now, I would hope that religions are less hostile to people who are different.

I also think if there were no Israel, Jewish people would be more likely to be killed. Elon Musk recently did a Nazi salute in America, many conservatives are openly embracing racists like Nick Fuentes, and it's very hard to predict if these are random flukes or if it's a harbinger of neo-Nazism growing in America. And although Europe has become more tolerant of Jewish people since WWII, I can understand some Jewish people wanting to not live there post-Holocaust.

I'm also not okay with war crimes. Many war crimes have impacted Palestinians: starvation of civilian Palestinians as a method of war negotiation, having dogs fuck Palestinians in prison to rape sexually assault and degrade and humiliate them (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8dy8r7lq0go), etc. International organizations have correctly labeled what has occurred a genocide and these organizations are not biased and are telling the truth. I would like Israel to exist and Palestinians to be treated well and have a place to live (that isn't subject to bizarre blockades or harsh unfair rules).

However, based on the technical meaning of Zionist, since I support Israel existing, that makes me a Zionist. I'm willing to leave voluntarily (or you can just ban me).

I'm not a part of your instance, but this popped up in my feed and I thought it was interesting.

I'm not pro-Zionist and I'm not pro-settler, but I often take devil's advocate stances in Israel-Palestine arguments and am frequently mistaken as being a Zionist. In my opinion it isn't pragmatic to approach this argument in a black and white manner. Too often people on Lemmy boil down geopolitical arguments into what is objectively morally right instead of what is pragmatically possible for the leaders of a country. People on Lemmy often also seem to expect immediate results for decades old issues because "It's so simple to solve, just do X." When you don't immediately agree with these answers because they aren't pragmatically possible you get labelled as a Zionist.

People on Lemmy also seem unable to critically assess sources or research and when it comes to Israel-Palestine news they are willing to accept Pro-Palestine media on it's face while they dismiss any and all Pro-Israel evidence simply because of who it comes from. An independent journalist can write an article alleging something happened with nothing but a Twitter post as evidence, Al Jazeera will pick it up and copy the article almost verbatim with barely more than a credit to the original journalist, Haaretz will then pick it up saying Al Jazeera reported (again with almost no changes), and then it pops up on CBS. The next time you hear about it some guy on Lemmy is telling you that it's well known that XYZ happened because CBS, Haaretz, and Al Jazeera all reported it when it was really one guy with a twitter post. On the other hand you present a 500 page Israeli report to the UN on the details of an event and it's fake news because it came from Israel.

I get tired of people posting Israel-Palestine news that holds less journalist value than saying my friend's brother's ex-girlfriend said so. I get tired of people making arguments in bad faith because they care more about things aligning with their views rather than being true. Also, a lot of people on Lemmy don't really know what they are talking about, and this applies even outside of Israel-Palestine arguments; just the other day I had a guy argue with me about what happened in my life because statistically it should be a different way.

At the end of the day many people on Lemmy say they left other places, like Reddit or Twitter, because of the behaviors that they witnessed there, but it feels more like they just want an echo chamber to circle jerk to. I don't think you should ban accounts for engaging in civil debate so long as it is well sourced, researched, and seems to be in genuine good faith, but I would say that that should also go the other way. If all someone has to contribute to a discussion is a low effort and faithless argument, or just mudslinging, then they should be temp banned from posting (however that works) no matter which side the support.

EDIT: I'm the fire starter

Democratizing ethics. Lmao.

There's a difference between neozionism, those that want to continue carrying out colonialist activities, and postzionism, those that don't. If you don't want to establish a difference between the two, you might as well ban the entirety of American users as well as many other countries. From the sounds of it, you want to focus on neozionist mirroring Hasbara talking points, so you should make the distinction. Otherwise I'm just going to assume you are picking the flip side of the same coin and are really trying to sneak an Israel shouldn't exist stance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY

Frankly, I don't care whether it is Israel or Palestine, I just don't think savagery is solved by savagery from the other guy, and there are plenty of Muslims that march along with plenty of Jews for peace in the region and for Palestinian rights without calling for the toppling the existing state and the bloodshed that would inevitably ensue from it.

One of my favorite hobbies over the past few years is following the internal collapse of online communities that passionately support an incoherent political ideology. There's something entertaining in watching events of the downfall unfold as predicted. This community is going down that road and there's not stopping it.

It's really not hard to see why. Anarchy is a fundamentally incoherent ideology. The ideology goes against human nature. There's a reason why it never worked out in history and never will. Like with all other inherently flawed ideologies, anarchy is too rigid, idealistic, and out of touch with reality. It can't adapt and its inadequacies can't hold up to criticism. Therefore, in order for the ideology to stay intact, authoritarianism has to step in and limit the discourse.

And so the censorship hammer begins to swing. Political censorship always after specific targets rather than specific behaviors, which means that it's designed to be weaponized. This is usually done with the implementation being intentionally unprincipled and vague which removes accountability from the censoring authority, thus giving them the wiggle room to censor whoever they don't like. Which is another thing, political censorship is always framed as a necessary moral purification rather than the liberty erosion that it is. This gives the censoring authority the power to ban any critics of the censorship as being immoral or supporting immorality. It's the same old tired textbook that we've time and time again.

The thing is? It will happen. There's no point in arguing for or against something like this, it will pass with thunderous applause... which is ironic for an anarchist space, but that's just how things go. Once it does pass, it WILL be followed up with a similar proposal soon after and then another and another, and the discourse here will continue to slowly but surely get more limited and more extreme. This will remain the case until the community snuffs itself out and only a shell of what it used to be remains. This community's future is going to be similar to what r/conservative or lemmygrad are like now. If that's how it's going to be, then I might as well as sit back and enjoy the show.

I’m not from this instance but I think this idea is ridiculous. You all have the right to be fascist, that’s up to you, but I think it’s bad. People have the right to believe whatever they want and you have the right not to host their accounts. But this is a terrible idea.

"We're a bunch of losers who got banned from reddit, so we will start our own forum to protect free speech!" "Yeah! Except for those people who believe things we don't like!" this thread happens