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
    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
      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
        1·
        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
          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.