Post #1596074

2025-11-19 20:38 UTC

Got one who decided to respond to the deeper explanation to talk down to me about we need the definition to be more explicit. I'll reiterate: anyone questioning the rule "no f fascists" directly is going to be a problem. There are no "false positives" because the signal is "willing to argue with a no fascist policy" not "full throated fascists!." If you haven't adopted a code of conduct yet, that's where you put examples of bad behavior. If you're worried about folks not picking up on the subtly of the trap, put that example there. And while you should absolutely get community input on rules, some things need to be deal breakers. Protecting fascism is high up that list. Also, ban anyone who questions the value of having a code of conduct. See previous statements about being a drain on community management resources.

Replies (3)

@Taco_lad@aus.social 2025-11-19 22:17

@pathunstrom https://youtu.be/IKICKcMU3MU I love the line from this classic - "why the fuck are you a voluntary Nazi Safety Advocate? That's a funny thing to be concerned about, the wellbeing of hypothetical Nazis"

Open ##1596099
@neoluddite@aus.social 2025-11-21 03:46

@pathunstrom also 1 week time outs for people trying to argue or reason with or mansplain fascism to the fascists, like that's ever worked

Open ##1596100
@stepan@f.cz 2026-04-16 23:00

@pathunstrom (this was just boosted and that's why i'm responding) i'm neurodivergent and vaguely defined rules are kinda uncomfortable for me. i'm pretty sure they are much more uncomfortable for some more autistic people. while i believe i understand what fascism is quite well - and am deeply antifascist - i wouldn't immediately assume someone is an apologist just for asking. definitely a sign to be suspicious tho.

Open ##1596101