You are the one assuming phrases calling for the death of a nation state are a literal call to genocide everyone inside that nation state. That’s the worst possible bad faith interpretation of that phrasing one could make. Yes it’s one possible meaning, among many others. Yet despite everyone here telling you your interpretation is bad faith and that’s not what we mean by it, here you are insisting your interpretation is the only possible correct one. I don’t know if the German language is just very literal about such things, but that’s simply not how English works. Essentially what you and Feddit.org and Germany itself has done, is to mischaracterise that phrase by redefining it according to your own biases, and then banning the phrase on the basis of your own definition. That’s what is lazy and malicious and childish.

I think they just like to always assume the worst in order to justify their own overly broad definition of antsemitism, accusations of which are used to shield Israel (and Germany’s support of Israel) from valid criticism. After all if they can claim they are fighting antisemitism instead of aiding a genocide, then the political optics are much better.

No.

DickTasty and SubJesus are the worst possible examples someone could make to illustrate this point.

The other Guy, I don’t know much about, but he was breaking the rule. You only showed one of his removed comments. This comment was a blatant violation of rule 7, and the user is a self-described [liberal] progressive, so 🤷 I guess.

I’ll also just point out that there is no barrier for anyone to open up an Anarcho-Electoralist community. Personally I like the rule in place, it stops the community from being swamped by libs during the US election cycle. Why should we all have to suffer through their bullshit?

Read rule 1, asshole.

The holocaust was legal under German law too.

Welcome to the community :)

Well… now you’ve got your second badge of “honor” I guess.

Thanks for the explanation, but if you look at the context, neither of them were employing the disengage rule, the word was just being used in the normal way.

Also I am going to say let’s disengage. We’ve veered terribly far off topic. If you have beef with Feddit, then start a thread elsewhere and maybe one of the other admins can properly explain everything.

[…] I agree, it’s pointless to have this discussion with someone who evades the core point of the criticism with strawmans and false dilemmas What I told @mathemachristian@lemmy.ml still stands, and nothing you say here will change it.

Disengaged.

AACAB?

Ok I think that’s fair enough, thanks.

See https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/39126561

As diminou mentioned, do your research before you go down this road. You can also open yourself to DMCA takedowns if you aren’t careful.

See: https://docs.invidious.io/hide-instance-behind-proxy-server/

It would be better for you to just run a private instance initially. You can use tailscale if you want to be able to access it remotely. That’s the safest way to start out.

Edit: There’s a tutorial here if you are intent on doing it: https://fedfree.org/docs/http/arch-invidious.html

Here’s all the community rules:

• Submissions must link directly to a video between 5 minutes and 1 hour long.
• Use a duration in your title such as [9:27].
• Be mindful that some people will be watching this while eating. No ‘gross’ content, no NSFL, racism, bigotry, etc.
• Use a title that is descriptive of the actual video.
• Be respectful of other submitters and commenters. Personal attacks, hate speech, bigotry, etc will not be tolerated.

I agree with you that your comment didn’t break any rules, so PTB. They don’t have any rules about “civility” towards content creators. If they think they words “fuck off” are too much to deal with over a “mealtime”, then they should probably implement a “no swearing” rule. But also, get real… that’s how real people speak ffs. If they only want SFW content, then make it an explicit rule.

In 2015, the channel received a US$570,000 grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

That was 11 years ago, so I don’t know how relevant your question is tbh. But there is good reason to wonder if Gates’ philanthropy is taking a turn to the right, since he is being praised by “The Hill” and other right wing sources for withdrawing funding for left leaning organizations: https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/5522092-bill-gates-may-have-just-set-off-the-death-of-far-left-tainted-philanthropy/

The Gates Foundation is said to have severed ties with Arabella Advisors, which has received over $450 million from Gates over the years. With a reported 425 employees, Arabella is the hub of a vast network of Democratic and leftwing groups, and Gates’s cutoff was, according to The New York Times, “a symbolically significant blow to a powerful player in liberal politics.”

And Gates has now backed off his claims that manmade global warming or “climate change” poses an existential threat to the human race and the planet. He still asserts that “climate change” is at least partly the result of human activity, but acknowledges that fears of catastrophe have been exaggerated.

I think it’s fine if they don’t want to be a political community, but then they should probably adjust the rules accordingly.