The instance seems to be mostly right wing trolls. I know defederating is unpopular but I don't think much is to be lost in this case and it can save the mods some headaches.
Edit: the response on exploding-heads.com to my reporting of transphobia. Courtesy of the "second in command"
Tolerance is a peace treaty, not a moral precept.
Defederating is a proportional response to a server with a top-level community dedicated to trans hate.
I think people need to remember that nobody owes one's instance federation
I could say some things about why some people here don't seem to think that people outright saying full-on alt-right shit is bad enough that we should defederate, but I don't think they'd actually understand or want to
fuck it; those people are so lucky that they've never had to think about the danger of alt-right shit as anything other than a thought experiment, the type that hasn't ever had to deal with people who fundamentally want them to stop existing
like guys, that's not "alt-right people are crazy weirdos but ultimately harmless", that's "I'm lucky because I just happen to not be a primary target for them, if a target at all, and I have mistaken this for the alt-right being of low influence"
honestly peak "I don't have to think much about politics, and haven't realized that this is an incredible privilege to have" behavior
To put another spin on it, lemmygrad and exploding heads have an old beef with each other that predates the reddit migration. Far-left vs far-right, it's not rocket science. As an example try typing in lemmygrad.com and see which instance it takes you to.
Now ask yourself what it tells people when sh.itjust.works has lemmygrad defederated but not EH. It's an endorsement, no?
Well put.
People rarely know what the paradox of tolerance really is and just use it as a cudgel to shut down any argument they disagree with.
The creator of the idea himself said
"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument"
Not that I don't believe you, but got a source for that quote? would love to read more
Sure, np.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Page 280 if the link breaks: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.59272/page/n279/mode/1up
That's the thing though, most (all?) alt-right arguments aren't based on facts and opening the door for them to even try and defend their point of view also opens the door to the radicalisation of people who are potentially swayed by non-rational arguments.
Give them as little visibility as possible so people who might be convinced by them get as little exposition as possible and society will just be better for it.
Most arguments are based on belief rather than facts. We rarely do the research and testing ourselves and instead just trust whomever we already agree with and is considered an expert.
Problem is that's on all sides of the political spectrum. Everyone thinks their experts are right and everyone else is crazy or deluded.
The way to resolve this and find out what's actually true isn't by shutting down what one disagrees with, but by engaging in debates and discussion with each other, and pointing out the holes in each other's reasoning and tests.
I was banned from r/GamingCircleJerk for 'transphobia' because I said they were wrong for harassing streamers for playing Hogwarts Legacy and that the over the top attacks on a video game were causing harm to trans causes.
We run into that problem a lot. People get high on righteousness and any attempt at moderation is seen as being from 'the enemy'.
I think the opinions expressed by the person in the OP's screenshot are heinous and people who share their opinions cause real harm in society. However, there is a major difference between having bad opinions and posting an address of a Jewish Synagogue with instructions on how to make firebombs. De-Federation should be used to cut ties with instances who promote calling for violence, sharing abusive content (like CSAM) and spreading hatred.
I'm of the opinion that people who have wrong opinions can be reached and that we have a responsibility to have a dialog with people with whom we strongly disagree. That responsibility ends when the person or group descends into actual violent acts. That's the line for de-federation, in my opinon.
I definitely agree.