8 ms·

I like the double speak of both "condemning cancel culture against users refusing to leave" while at the same time cancelling people who want to leave. Pick one

by zaarn 5y ago

I like the double speak of both "condemning cancel culture against users refusing to leave" while at the same time cancelling people who want to leave. Pick one, you can't have both.

immibis 5y ago
Believe it or not, this kind of thing is a fascist tactic, applied on a small scale.
- dTal 5y ago
  This isn't hyperbolic. The battle lines are a deeply fascinating "animal model" of real political tendencies. I've noticed a marked political split between those who stayed on Freenode and those who moved to Libera. You can probably guess which side is which - the side that stayed is the side afraid of change.
masklinn 5y ago
> you can't have both. Of course you can. That’s perfectly standard conservative (and more so fash) tactic: you have rights, “they” have duties. or in a more flowery langage > Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
- baryphonic 5y ago
  Edit: deleted
  - watwut 5y ago
    1.) It would help if cops arrested rioters and not like journalists or random activists that done no violence at those riots. 2.) It also absurd to try to apply current American two party system dichotomy and right-left split on to WWI Russia. Nevertheless, claim that contemporary right wing in united states does X is not proven false by claiming that Bolsheviks doing that too in 1918 in Russia. It is quite normal for multiple anti-democratic movements using the same strategies, really, despite them otherwise having different ideologies.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- ehvatum 5y ago
  Alinsky Rules For Radicals rule 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
- wyager 5y ago
  Hypocrisy is not unique to conservatives. All mainstream politics is hostile zero-sum competition over the allocation of resources. Maintaining a narrative facade of some kind of moral legitimacy for this process often requires some kind of internal narrative inconsistency.
linuxftw 5y ago
The channels being 'taken over' are the channels that were telling people to use the other network. There's no point in Freenode existing if all the channels point to some other place. I support Freenode's decision.
- zaarn 5y ago
  Notice that in some cases, channels were banned for merely advertising that they also run a channel on libera.chat. Not that they are moving to libera.chat, that they ALSO run a channel there. It's a very basic attempt at suppressing people wanting to leave and trying to convince others. And you're correct, there is no point to freenode existing.
- BEEdwards 5y ago
  This is an open space not a walled garden, if i wanted walled gardens i'd be on apple.
- ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
  The channels being taken over were ones wherein the community either was considering, or had decided, to move to a different comms platform. The self-proclaimed "Owner and Guardian of Freenode" has not yet put in the effort to earn himself a seat at that discussion table for a single one of those communities, much less all of them. The hardest thing for someone with NPD to hear is that they don't always get to be The Most Important Person In The Room, final decider of all things, and petty frustration at that lack of control over other fellow humans drove this power grab.
  - linuxftw 5y ago
    The 'staff' resigned, so it looks like a powergrab by them via starting their own network and disparaging freenode. I didn't see anything that was irreconcilable at the start of this, only that the 'staffs' demands of having DNS ownership were denied. > The self-proclaimed "Owner and Guardian of Freenode" has not yet put in the effort to earn himself a seat at that discussion table for a single one of those communities, much less all of them. That's just your opinion. I don't share it. I think Freenode is going fine, I'm fine with cutting bait with the outrage mob. If you want to go, go.

by zaarn 5y ago

I like the double speak of both "condemning cancel culture against users refusing to leave" while at the same time cancelling people who want to leave. Pick one, you can't have both.

immibis 5y ago

Believe it or not, this kind of thing is a fascist tactic, applied on a small scale.

dTal 5y ago
This isn't hyperbolic. The battle lines are a deeply fascinating "animal model" of real political tendencies. I've noticed a marked political split between those who stayed on Freenode and those who moved to Libera. You can probably guess which side is which - the side that stayed is the side afraid of change.

masklinn 5y ago

> you can't have both. Of course you can. That’s perfectly standard conservative (and more so fash) tactic: you have rights, “they” have duties. or in a more flowery langage > Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

baryphonic 5y ago
Edit: deleted
- watwut 5y ago
  1.) It would help if cops arrested rioters and not like journalists or random activists that done no violence at those riots. 2.) It also absurd to try to apply current American two party system dichotomy and right-left split on to WWI Russia. Nevertheless, claim that contemporary right wing in united states does X is not proven false by claiming that Bolsheviks doing that too in 1918 in Russia. It is quite normal for multiple anti-democratic movements using the same strategies, really, despite them otherwise having different ideologies.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
ehvatum 5y ago
Alinsky Rules For Radicals rule 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
wyager 5y ago
Hypocrisy is not unique to conservatives. All mainstream politics is hostile zero-sum competition over the allocation of resources. Maintaining a narrative facade of some kind of moral legitimacy for this process often requires some kind of internal narrative inconsistency.

linuxftw 5y ago

The channels being 'taken over' are the channels that were telling people to use the other network. There's no point in Freenode existing if all the channels point to some other place. I support Freenode's decision.

zaarn 5y ago
Notice that in some cases, channels were banned for merely advertising that they also run a channel on libera.chat. Not that they are moving to libera.chat, that they ALSO run a channel there. It's a very basic attempt at suppressing people wanting to leave and trying to convince others. And you're correct, there is no point to freenode existing.
BEEdwards 5y ago
This is an open space not a walled garden, if i wanted walled gardens i'd be on apple.
ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
The channels being taken over were ones wherein the community either was considering, or had decided, to move to a different comms platform. The self-proclaimed "Owner and Guardian of Freenode" has not yet put in the effort to earn himself a seat at that discussion table for a single one of those communities, much less all of them. The hardest thing for someone with NPD to hear is that they don't always get to be The Most Important Person In The Room, final decider of all things, and petty frustration at that lack of control over other fellow humans drove this power grab.
- linuxftw 5y ago
  The 'staff' resigned, so it looks like a powergrab by them via starting their own network and disparaging freenode. I didn't see anything that was irreconcilable at the start of this, only that the 'staffs' demands of having DNS ownership were denied. > The self-proclaimed "Owner and Guardian of Freenode" has not yet put in the effort to earn himself a seat at that discussion table for a single one of those communities, much less all of them. That's just your opinion. I don't share it. I think Freenode is going fine, I'm fine with cutting bait with the outrage mob. If you want to go, go.