I’m simply asking this question because of Lemmygrad.ml existing, and that there isn’t a far-right equivalent of it yet. If Lemmygrad has any standing for its right to exist under free speech, where is the line drawn for other extremist political ideologies? If Holodomor skepticism is allowed, then what stops Holocaust skepticism? (as it is generally accepted the Holodomor was man-made). I’m simply wondering what gives far-left politics a right to promote such extremist views in the Fediverse, when their far-right counterparts would be Defederated in minutes.

  • shanghaibebop@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Eh… I have met enough far-left authoritarians who are openly racist, anti-lgbtq, and who advocated for violence against people solely based on their family background that I don’t think the extreme right has a monopoly on hate.

    I don’t think that level of intolerance should be tolerated, regardless of whether someone is on the right or left of the spectrum.

    • relevants@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      What does “far-left” mean to you, then? If someone with views entirely counter to progressive ideas just calls themselves “far-left” while spewing hateful garbage, do you just accept that they are part of the left?

      Politics isn’t team sports. Your political association is defined by your views, not by what side you claim to be on.

      • shanghaibebop@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then it’s just a “no true Scotsman” argument.

        There are plenty of examples of leftist governments who were openly hostile to minorities.

        • Kwakigra@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is like saying “No true Scotsman was born and raised in Istanbul, speaks only Turkish, and has never even visited Scotland or ever mentioned being intereted in doing so.” For example, the “National Socialists” were not actually socialists even though they used socialist-like policies exclusively on an ethnic national basis, and no one serious is arguing that they were on the left. The left wing represents social equality and progressivism, while the right wing represents tradition and hierarchy. This has been the understanding of these terms since they were invented during the French Revolution.

          • shanghaibebop@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            And the left wing politicians during the French Revolution never prosecuted minorities in the name of the republic?

            Damn, what happened to the entire Occitaian culture?

            Oh wait, it was deemed an enemy of progress.

            • The monarchy had reasons to resemble the Tower of Babel; in democracy, leaving the citizens to ignore the national language [that of Paris], unable to control the power, is betraying the motherland… For a free people, the tongue must be one and the same for everyone. -Bertrand Barère

            If you want to use that definition of left right from the French Revolution, fine, are they not “left” when they literally sat on the left side of the National Assembly?

            • Kwakigra@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Interesting point you bring up. You are absolutely correct about the consequences of the revolution and the involvement of hierarchical thinking of the Parisians towards the other ethnic groups around them. The Parisians who went and carried out the genocides may have believed that their actions conformed to “Liberty, fraternity, and equality” of the French people, but I’m not sure it was the logical conclusion to the ideology of the revolution, or the left. Looking back from my modern perspective completely out of context I would say these actions went against the professed ideology of the revolution before reality came in and complicated everything.

              What I’m saying is that the left is the idea of progressivism and social equality, while the right is the idea of hierarchy and tradition. Actors who intend for progressivism and social equality can, due to the various pressures of the real world, can end up taking right wing measures as above. If someone supports the idea of tradition and hierarchy in the first place, I would not consider them left wing regardless of how they label themselves.

    • Jo@readit.buzz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have met enough far-left authoritarians who are openly racist, anti-lgbtq, and who advocated for violence against people solely based on their family background that I don’t think the extreme right has a monopoly on hate.

      Yeah, they’re banned from lemmygrad. Rule 5:

      1. No capitalist apologia / anti-communism.
      1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
      1. Be respectful. This is a safe space where all comrades should feel welcome, this includes a warning against uncritical sectarianism.
      1. No porn or sexually explicit content (even if marked NSFW).
      1. No right-deviationists (patsocs, nazbols, strasserists, duginists, etc).
    • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You can’t be a fascist and not be bigoted. You can be a marxist-leninist and not as a rule hate minorities. I encourage you to go to lemmygrad yourself, see if you find any hatred of minorities being tolerated there. You just won’t.

      I can coexist in a space with them, they’re not going to start calling for the genocide of minority groups. They may dispute the way historical events transpired, but there’s a fundamental difference between “these events didnt happen the way you’re describing” and a fascist saying “let’s mass murder all the minorities because they’re biologically impure”. I can coexist in a space with one, with the other my murder (or the murder of any other marginalized group) is as a rule being outright advocated for.

      No matter how hard you try tankies even at their worst are not fascists. To try and equate the two is beyond ridiculous. You can point out that some historical regimes have done a lot of horrible things, fair enough. But ideologically marxist-leninists are not comparable on any level to fascists.

      I can not, and will never under any circumstances tolerate the presence of fascism to any degree.

      • Serdan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        OP mentioned Holodomor, so I’ll just point out that ML’s generally don’t deny that there was a famine, or even that it was exacerbated by bad policy. The specific point of contention is whether it was intentional.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question

        Even historians debate this, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to characterize it as “genocide denial”.

    • gibs@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have too, but let’s be realistic, and accept the honest fact that in far left spaces, racism, homophobia, transphobia etc us far, far less acceptable than in far right spaces. I’ve hung out with hardcore marxists and despite not necessarily agreeing with their political takes I’ve never had to feel uncomfortable with my race or sexuality in the same way that even mildly right-leaning folks have made me feel.

      Yes, I’m sure racism and homophobia exist on the far left, but it’s an extreme minority on that side compared to on the right where it’s a pretty mild take, and treating the two as remotely equivalent is very harmful in itself.